LSUpride's heartfelt question on abortions spurred me to ask you all your thoughts on how, why and when rights should be limited. We often talk about how our 2nd amendment rights or the "right to privacy"/abortion a woman's body shouldn't be limited and are absolute yet from the beginning of the US the rights enumerated by the 10 amendments have been limited. Freedom of speech, free association, habeas corpus etc all have well recognized limits both in legislation and court rulings. Why not the two most contentious rights being discussed today? The slippery slope argument the defenders of both use is as valid for those that already have limits ipso facto it is an invalid argument. To me limitation of individual rights is necessary and a consequence of living in a large complex society. Limits need to be dynamic and change as society changes as long as the understanding that these rights are critical to the maintenance of a free society and are respected and cherished. Specifically I believe abortion should be severly limited after the first trimester. Likewise I believe finding ways to limit access of guns to crazies etc can be valid. I would also support limits on automatic weapons. I also believe every purchase should have a gun/hunter/shooter safety course mandated before the gun can be received. SO what do you all think? Do you see that we have had limits on rights & freedoms for over 200 years? Don't you think that the discussion is dynamic not cast in concrete?
Great thread topic, Winston. I agree with just about everything you stated in your post. At different times in our history we have had to give up a portion of our rights in order to achieve a larger objective. I have no problems with relinquishing some rights in order to achieve a larger goal as long as there is a time limit for it and it doesn't become an open ended excuse for stripping rights away permanently. Abortion is such a sticky issue because it involves the rights of two individuals. Whose rights are more important? Well, I suppose that's the million dollar question. Obesity is also an issue that affects the rights of more than just those who are pulling up to the buffet bar too much. You have your right to eat what you want and be as fat as you want but those decisions also affect my health insurance rates and why should I have to pay for your bad habits?
It is a little frightening to agree so much NC...what will we have to argue about? LOL I am curious to see what the more rabid posters take on this is. It is absolutist positions that cause so much trouble. That is also why I linked the 2nd amendment and abortion. The idea that a right has limits and its scope is somewhat fluid needs to be accepted and understood by both sides.
I find it kind of hypocritical that most who are anti abortion are also anti social programs and anti "entitlements". But I have somewhat seen the light, government can't be trusted, but neither can private business. It's a catch 22. What we need is less government, but at the same time, profit above anything else including humanity and ethics should be extracted from capitalism. The question is how.
I don't know Winston, but I am sure we'll find something to argue about after this lull in the action.....LOL It is the absolutist positions that cause us so much trouble in just about every aspect of our government right now, from both sides.
Rights should be limited IMO. Some things just dont make any fucking sense. You have to have a parents permission for a child to take aspirin at school, however a child can effectively buy a morning after pill with no phone call to parents. Now, I am not saying deny the sale of the pill, but I think at 15, 16 and even 17 the parents should at the very least be notified. The problem isn't allowing/not allowing access to abortions. The problem is the way kids are raised. With regards to other freedoms, some people just can't handle it. They abuse it. I believe history confirms the need to governed to some extent.
I'm not anti entitlements, I just want a system that promotes personal growth. Think of it as an investment of sorts. I am totally fine helping those who needed. I am not fine with generations of families on welfare with no sign of getting off of it.
I like what you said there Pride. To have generations of people living in poverty and dispair with no hope is destructive. To invest in developing a future would help all. The present system does neither. It keeps people in the morass and doen't provide a viable path out.
Lasalle I think many who oppose social programs have three issues. First they believe it is a private issue and not one the government should be involved in. Many of those who are anti abortion and social welfare have programs in place to provide private help. They aren't hypocritcs but put their money where their mouths are. Second they see how poorly the government has performed in the long run. There are effective programs but they are overwhelmed by the mass of poor ones. It seems it is easier to cry for the poor than it is to truly help. Finally they also see it as a political tool used by Ds and libs to assuage their guilt and place it on "greedy rich". It makes them feel superior and wins votes. Why don't you condem those whose poor design, operation and continued support of these programs has trapped so many in poverty & dispair?
its an issue of morality and should not be in the legal realm. all abortions after conception (and that includes most contraceptive drugs), with an exception for mother's health, are wrong.
