Author
|
Topic: Mo's Abortion Answer (Read 712 times) |
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender: 
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.60
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
 
|
 |
Mo's Abortion Answer
« on: 2007-05-16 08:39:37 » |
 |
I've found a new toy -- Yahoo Answers. I've submitted five and already one of mine was chosen as the best answer. Woo Hoo! 
Here is the URL but I will post the content here as well.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070513151219AAOWCjE
Here was the question: I picked the topic of abortion.. i need help finding...?
the opinions that Democrats and Republicans generally have concerning the issue of abortion.
Identify the opinions of a third political party concerning your issue.
Include your documentation for each of the three parties. (work cited)
And here is my answer: Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
I am a Democrat, and since you are asking for opinions, I am using myself as a first hand source. It makes me an instant genius since you asked for it. Generally I've found that other Democrats are politically pro-choice. In terms of ethics and morals, however, they vary considerably.
Personally I think in terms of parental rights. In my ideal world people would gain the right to life at the same time that they get the right to vote. While it is still in her body (including partial birth abortions) its a woman's right to sacrifice her unborn spawn to the gods or whatever makes her happy. If it escapes her body and until it reaches majority, the mother and father jointly share the right to euthenize/sacrifice etc. their own minor spawn if they both agree.
The moral of this story is Biblically based in the Ten commandments, specifically in God's command to respect your parents. Our children have become unruly in this day and age, and so this is my proposal to remedy the problem. If they knew that their parents could literally decide that their services were no longer needed, it would add considerable inspiration for their young lives.
Imagine a world with no unwanted children! A child could know by the very fact that they are alive that SOMEBODY in this world actually wants them. I want to give parents the tools they need to raise their children in this Godless liberal age, . . . to raise worthwhile children so that the next generation will do better. Perhaps they will even learn not to vote for someone like George W. Bush. This is what I pray for.
Mine is an unusual moral/ethical position to take among Democrats. Many Democrats are morally opposed to abortion, but politically pro-choice. That is the Bill Clinton line of "safe, legal, and rare." My personal variation is "safe, legal, prompt, and on-demand."
Source(s):
"safe, legal, and rare" -William Jefferson Clinton,
"Honor thy Mother and Father" - the Ten Commandments
Mo Enzyme
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Mo's Abortion Answer
« Reply #1 on: 2007-05-17 19:17:13 » |
|
Dear Mo,
This is far from a unique response, although American educational deficiencies may have lead to neither you nor your audience knowing of earlier articulations - and the tendency of American education to not only gloss over, but actively suppress information about the USA's eugenics programs of the latter years of the 1800s and into the early to mid 1900s (far worse in many ways than the German programs of the same era) possibly contributed too.
Remembering Tabula IV of the Lex Duodecim Tabularum, a bit of googling brought me here to this:
Law I.
A father shall have the right of life and death over his son born in lawful marriage, and shall also have the power to render him independent, after he has been sold three times.[2]
[2] This privilege, the patria potestas, enjoyed by Roman fathers, was a relic of the patriarchal authority originally asserted by a man over his household, including the members of his immediate family, his slaves, and other dependents. Derived from ancient custom, it continued to exist for centuries after Rome had attained an exalted rank in the scale of civilization, and other practices of barbarous origin and primitive character had long been abandoned. It is said by Justinian (Code VI, 26) to have been an institution peculiar to the Romans; for while other nations possessed authority over their children unlimited by any legislative provision, few of their regulations bore even a distant resemblance to those which confirmed the Roman father in the exercise of his unquestioned and arbitrary power, the jus vitę et necis. This power in early times was unbounded, and usually endured through life.
A marked peculiarity of this relation was what was known as the unitas personę, under which a father and his son subject to his control were, by means of a legal fiction, held to be but a single person in law. Hence, when the father died, the son at once succeeded him; for the reason that, during his father's lifetime he had been a joint owner of the undivided estate. Despite the unitas personę, the child was strictly not a person but a thing, one of the res mancipi, which by quiritarian right could be sold by the owner. The father was authorized to make any disposition of his offspring that he chose; he could scourge, maim, imprison, torture, or execute them at his pleasure. Nor was this right infrequently or sparingly exercised; the Roman annals are full of instances where sons were inhumanly treated and put to death by their fathers.
The acquisition of the patria potestas was dependent upon the status of the parent at the time of the birth of the child; he must be free, or sui juris, to be entitled to exercise paternal control, for if he were subject to the authority of another ascendant, his child would also come under the power of the latter.
Under ordinary circumstances, a son could acquire no property for himself, all he obtained belonged to his father. Exceptions were subsequently made in the cases of private, independent ownership of what was received by him while preparing for, or engaged in military service, or as a member of the priesthood; and finally of all acquisitions derived from maternal or other inheritances, or which were the remuneration of his individual labor or skill. This species of property designated peculium castrense, and quasi peculium castrense, was the subject of numerous Imperial enactments, which, in the course of time, afforded substantial relief to children oppressed by this legalized tyranny; as the censors, in the time of the Republic, had frequently exerted their authority for the same purpose.
Patria potestas was a necessary incident of lawful wedlock, which indeed was indispensable; and the authority thereby obtained was imposed on all the descendants through the son, but did not affect the offspring of a daughter who was subject to the paterfamilias of the family into which she had married. In addition to birth, paternal power could be acquired by means of the public acknowledgment of legitimacy, by adoption, and by matrimony.
As a natural result of placing children in the same category with slaves and domestic animals, liable to sale, barter, and the most cruel abuse, there was a time at which a child could be given up to the injured party by way of reparation for some unlawful act, or noxa, which it had committed; a practice condemned by Justinian in unmeasured terms.
It was not until about 370, during the reign of Valentinian and Valens, that measures were taken to place restrictions upon the irresponsible power of the head of the household; an example which was followed by many succeeding emperors. The sentiment expressed by Hadrian in condemning to exile a father who had killed his son, discloses the change of public opinion with which the excessive exercise of -paternal authority was, even in that day, regarded. "Patria potestas in pietate debet, non in atrocitate, consistere."
This right, in a greatly modified form, and relating principally to the obligations of obedience and support, is explicitly recognized by the jurisprudence of Continental Europe. Ed.
Law II.
If a father sells his son three times, the latter shall be free from paternal authority.
Law III.
A father shall immediately put to death a son recently born, who is a monster, or has a form different from that of members of the human race.
Law IV.
When a woman brings forth a son within the next ten months after the death of her husband, he shall be born in lawful marriage, and shall be the legal heir of his estate.[1]
[1] At Common Law, the time prescribed was forty weeks. "Et si ele eyt un enfant dedens t's XL semaines adõques soit cel enfant receu el heritage." (Britton, Chap. 66, p. 166.) The countries whose jurisprudence is directly derived from that of Rome, as well as Japan, follow the rule of the text, and fix the limit at three hundred days. (Code Civil de France, Art. 315. Código Civil de Espańa, Art. 108. Codice Civile de Italia, Art. 160. Codigo Civil Portugues, Art. 101. Civil Code of
Possibly worth noting that Unitas Personę established, outside of crop theft, permanent unlimited liability for fathers (as slave, wife and animal owners were for the actions of their possessions - Tabula XII Lex III) for the actions of their children (i.e. the strict liability for children was not discharged by puberty or adulthood though the others could be discharged through divorce, manumission or sale), and that Unitas Personę was usually enforced even after Patria Potestas had fallen into some disrepute. This meant that there was a strong social pressure on fathers to ensure that their children learned acceptable behaviour at a very early age - or didn't survive to a later one. Wherever you read son, think double for daughters and triple for the rights of husbands over wives. Outside of requiring a reason for divorce (largely because of the implications for offspring), the Romans were not advocates of women's rights in any way, shape or form (note that wives and women are dealt with, briefly, in Tabula VI, ownership and possession).
Kindest Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.60
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:Mo's Abortion Answer
« Reply #2 on: 2007-05-19 07:39:10 » |
|
Hermit,
Thanks for the info. I agree that my position is not radically different from some ancient and successful societies. I would say that my position differs somewhat in that I would apply modern animal anti-cruelty laws to the situation. Parents would have the right to euthenize their minor children, but not the right to treat them cruelly.
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
|
Logged
