Should We Force Women To Bear Disabled Children?

bwarbiany · 3 months

Yes, I'm the author of the article.

But again, I think there's a moral obligation to a human being to give that human the chance to live. The question is whether there's at any point a legal obligation to the mother to do so.

If a law were written that required third-trimester pregnant woman who wanted to be rid of the pregnancy to carry the baby to term [and opt for adoption since they didn't want the child], I can't say I'd be opposed. At that point the legal question of competing rights, IMHO, likely should fall in favor of the unborn child. In the first trimester, when you're in early formation of organs and brain stem, the legal question of competing rights likely IMHO should fall in favor of the mother.

Being a libertarian atheist, and possessing a Y chromosome, abortion is one of those issues that I largely avoid. Despite writing hundreds of political posts for The Liberty Papers and for my personal blog before that, I've devoted only a handful to the topic of abortion. But if you wanted to nail me down on the subject, I'd support bans on late-term abortion, and despite my own moral belief (and that of my wife) that abortion is a bad moral idea prior to that time, wouldn't support bans on abortion earlier in the term of pregnancy.

If you had to nail it down that way, you could claim I'm pro-choice and you can claim I'm pro-life -- it just depends at what point we can agree that life possesses legal rights. I happen to believe that there is a point still within the womb where that should be the case.

bwarbiany · 3 months

Well, you excerpted me out of context there, buddy... The statement was prefaced with:

"For my wife and I, I'm very strongly pro-life."

By which I mean that I couldn't imagine a scenario where either of us would ever have a reason to choose abortion, regardless of the circumstances. In which I go on to say that if we were faced with the knowledge that we were going to have a child with Down's, we would not abort that child.

When I say (again earlier than what you excerpted) that I'm "generally" pro-life, it's because I believe that there is some point prior to birth that the growing baby is "person" enough to have rights. And as a result, all questions then become one of competing rights between the mother and the [unborn] baby. Generally in our society, to kill something that has rights requires a pretty compelling justification (i.e. the death penalty, self-defense, etc).

But would I lock a woman in a cage for being forced to make that horrible choice? I'm just not sure I'm strong enough in my belief that I'd be able to do so without regret. I'm a libertarian. I don't like locking people in cages.

bwarbiany · 1 year

It shouldn't be. However, the original post explains why even IF you make optimistic assumptions about gov't willingness to cut (i.e. doc fix & expiration of various stimulus programs), AND you make the assumption that we go back, IN FULL, to the Clinton-era tax rates, you're still stuck with a deficit >3% of GDP for at least the next decade.

Gov't revenue is WAY down right now due to the recession, which is why our deficit is 10% of GDP rather than 5-6% of GDP. But even if the revenue returns, we're still in trouble.

The spending needs SERIOUS help to come in line with even the most optimistic projections of expected revenues EVEN IF all the current tax rates expire in 2011 (which Obama is not in favor of, he constantly suggests that only the upper-income tax rates should expire).

bwarbiany · 2 years

America didn't have a department of education until 1953. I guess we must have been a nation of mental midgets before that time. I wonder where all our manufacturing power that allowed us to win WWII came from without a massive central education budget?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Health,_Education,_and_Welfare

bwarbiany · 2 years

Ahh, yes, because being against the current administration MUST mean I'm a die-hard Republican, right?

Does the term "libertarian" mean anything to the commenter?

bwarbiany · 2 years

I do :-)

bwarbiany · 3 years

It's a pretty crappy place to try to rob a party, I'll say that much.

bwarbiany · 3 years

Uh, did you realize that the original author is not a Republican, but an anarcho-capitalist? Did you not realize several times during the entire screed where he blasted Bush as a horrible President who trashed the Constitution and dramatically expanded the power of government?

While Texas isn't going to secede (and for that matter, neither is any other state, because they're chickenshit and most of the people of each state don't really value freedom in the way that we libertarians do), it's important to make the proper argument, just in case it becomes important in the future.

bwarbiany · 3 years

Wow... You're right. They're all crooks who are out for blood.

I'm sure you've responded by avoiding all commerce with those evil greedy businessmen, right?

Actually, we should probably stop this argument. After all, I work in corporate America, so I can't be trusted anyway.

bwarbiany · 3 years

How many kids do you really think are getting lead poisoning from dirtbikes and ATV's?

Do you think it's at ALL possible that maybe the blanket ban of some of these chemicals are overreaching, arbitrary, and unnecessary?

bwarbiany · 3 years

We're in agreement that there are LOTS of reasons for the failure of Zimbabwe -- and Mugabe's controlling of pretty much every aspect of the economy (most of which he's seized to give to his cronies) is pretty high up on the list.

Specifically, my point about "social benefits" was to suggest that a good portion of the inflation that is seen is due to the combination of socialism with a fiat monetary system and an avaristic government that spends money without regard to the economic laws which govern the ability to recoup that money via taxation.

Specifically, the goal was to draw the implicit parallel between what our current government is doing (nearly $1T economic "stimulus", massive deficit spending, and unfunded liabilities that dwarf our GDP) and the inflation that Zimbabwe is seeing. We simply will not tax and borrow our way out of the spending we've promised, and thus we can expect that the shortfall will be made up at the printing press.

Do I think we'll end up like Zimbabwe? Not at all. Do I think we're in for some serious problems -- of our own making? Yes.

padfoot7 · 3 years

"also, i haven't been to church since about 14 either. i'm 25 now. i'm considering going just for the laughs and curiosity."

And the choreography! Sit, stand, kneel, raise your arms, hold hands, etc...

At least, that's how the catholics do it... If you think of the whole thing as a theatrical production, it really makes it a lot easier to bear.

bwarbiany · 3 years

All23,

My post has NOTHING to do with George Bush. I am a libertarian and think that Bush's presidency has been-- at best-- a joke. He has not ever represented those of us who truly believe in limited (or no) government.

I've spent the last 4 years (since I began blogging) arguing in favor of liberty and usually against anything Bush has done. I will spend the next 4 (or 8) years arguing in favor of liberty -- and likely against most things Obama does.

Your comment has no relevance to my post.

(Oh, and the term "martial law" means something very specific -- and not as scary as it sounds -- when discussing Congressional rules: http://rules-republicans.house.gov/ShortTopics/Read.aspx?id=220 )

bwarbiany · 3 years

You can get onto a plane with liquor, or put it in your checked bags, but it would be difficult to get through the security checkpoint with liquor in your carry-on. The main issue being the liquid ban. Weed would be easy to conceal on your person (or potentially in your bag), or at least easier than a bottle of booze.

Of course, the TSA's tests have shown that it's not hard to get through their checkpoint with a FIREARM, so it's not like it's difficult to get whatever you want beyond the x-ray machine.

bwarbiany · 4 years

This isn't a problem with the police, per se. If it was, this would be an isolated case. Things like this are occurring all over the country, and it's an example that it's the entire system that's corrupt, not individual cops or individual departments.

bwarbiany · 4 years

Note: forcing them to hire women is the exact opposite of "letting the market sort it out".

I'm not a fan of the "boy's club" mentality. But at the same time, I don't think a government mandate is the solution.

bwarbiany · 4 years

LOL... I see you didn't click through to the site to realize it was a joke.

It refers to a Texas law taxing strip clubs, hence a "pole tax".

bwarbiany · 4 years

Thanks for the clarification, kmac...

I was a tad bit ahead of myself when I said you're now legally required, I should have made that conditional...

I'll revise this to fix it.

bwarbiany · 4 years

Why is it a poor headline? The legal question debated is whether the amendment protects an individual right or a collective right. Typically those described as "liberal" assume it is a collective right, and applies to organized groups like the national guard, not individuals. Thus, the headline is clearly marking the fact that this is a "liberal" professor breaking ranks with the common position one would expect him to take.

dougmataconis · 4 years

Excellent article... If the public realized what their "money" really is, they'd revolt!

bwarbiany · 4 years

Good points... Based on a quick look at our system, I think our system is more socialist than Switzerland's. They have more of the free market at work in their system than we do.

That being said, a single-payer government-run system is most certainly not the way to go from here.

bwarbiany · 4 years

Wow, they're paying people to go down there and criticize Chavez? And here I was willing to do it for free! Seriously, you don't have to be in the pocket of Big Oil to criticize Chavez...

Maybe the difference is that freedom means allowing foreign "dissidents" to have the same freedom of speech as people friendly to your government. It's letting both Sean Hannity and Michael Moore have the freedom to make their point.

Chavez isn't doing that. First it was RCTV, now he's threatening to deport any foreigner who might give his people a view of what Venezuela looks like to the rest of the world.

bwarbiany · 4 years

Yeah, but Columbia is "US Soil", even if it's not owned by the government. So the comparison still holds. Hell, I bet Columbia gets US funding through grants and scholarships, so they are even partially funded by "Bush's government".

Would you support Chavez stifling dissidents if they were on private property or private media in Venezuela?

(In case you missed it, I'm talking about Columbia University, not Colombia, the country...)

bwarbiany · 4 years

Alright then... What about when Columbia invited Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak there?

Would you have supported Bush shutting down that speaking engagement?

bwarbiany · 4 years

What, like when Chavez came to the UN and called Bush "El Diablo" and accused him of stealing elections?

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/09/20/chavez.un/

Chavez is leading Venezuela down a path to ruin. I personally don't care much about him, but Venezuela will be another example of the end result of socialism, so I make sure to highlight his deplorable behavior whenever possible.

bwarbiany

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login