Generally, we democrats have traditionally held the value toward human rights that is in accordance with the Founding Fathers: we each have inalienable rights, and a problem of government is infringment on those rights, and we should work to have these inalienable rights protected through government.
The idea is that we should all have these rights automatically; we don’t have to do anything to get them or earn them, and they are not granted from any one or any part of government.
If you yourself do not believe this, that is fine. But hit the books and go figure out that you are out of step with the USA. You will have to ignore or evade this concept to set up a one world government utopia where you get to decide who gets to live, when we die, and so on.
A current controversy in the media, the blog-fest regarding whether a pregnant couple should abort their baby or not, by your web-vote, is an illustration. In case you have not heard, the couple is, to be gracious, “immature.” Yes: vote on whether they should go abort their baby by their local legal 2nd trimester deadline, December 9.
They attracted attention, then got more for possibly setting up a fake contest: some said they never intended to abort at all, and are simply looking for attention, like the balloon-boy family.
This couple apparently did not thnik things through very far in advance, other than getting the ‘birthornot” web domain before conceiving this current baby (there have been previous conceptions).
The guy apparently is pro-life / pro-inalienable human rights. His blushing bride is apparently pro-second-trimester abortion. Here is how she believes human rights should be doled out to this little one who, by her, is acknowledged to be alive, and be a “baby:”
”Even though my husband’s opinions and beliefs matter to me, I, as the one carrying the baby have (sic) the final say about my body and our unborn child.”
So: the woman acknowledges a difficult decision to make, and acknowledges being ambivalent as she progresses in the 17th week of pregnancy.
Wow, this would be scary if you were held in prison, perhpas at the 17th week of detention with no lawyer and so on, awaiting a possible death sentence, and hoping that some totalitarian with power over you might grant due process, rather than simply extinguish your life right then and there.
why is it OK to treat a not-yet-born baby this way? Because, as we humans have done with other human rights issues, we figure out how to define the powerless as less-than-human, and largely act this way because the down-trodden have – get this – a lack of power.
Human rights are not just for the powerful. They are also for the powerless.
In the old days, most any democrat would come up with their own version of this belief. This includes ted Kennedy before he went pro-abortion in his quest for more power.
Nowadays, “we” have developed a whole set of lingo to try to offset something so obvious: “right to bodily integrity,” “viability,” “every child wanted, and the rest for the dumpster.”
Pathetic. As those who once were democrats, who have gone socialist, proceed to usher in their one-world government proletariat utopia, you had just better hope the mood swings of the self-avowed “dictatorship” [page 3, here: http://www.revcom.us/socialistconstitution/SocialistConstitution-en.pdf ] don’t get ya.
don’t get ya.