Wednesday, May 20, 2009

John Bergstrom Doesn't Play Well With Others

John (aka Varmint) wrote a comment:

So far Obama has waffled on Guantanamo, rendition and tribunals. during the campaign he even pretended to respect gun rights. But abortion is something he has never compromised on. it is very important to him for some reason. strip everything else away and he still believes in it.

Here's my theory:

If we believe that the Right to Life (and the causally subsequent Rights of Liberty, etc.) begins at conception, then at what point (short of a conviction for a capital offense) can that right be denied to a person? Voluntary Socialism has been repeatedly proven (The Plymouth Colony, Jonestown,etc.) to not work. Thus in order for Socialism to "work" it has to be made compulsory, through the credible threat of violence against productive persons. Which means that any social concept that restrains the power of the state, such as the Rights of Life and Liberty, has to be rendered invalid. Preferably by the victims themselves. What Ayn Rand used to call the Sanction of the Victim.

The term "pro-choice" is a typical socialist inversion of meaning. To deny the Right to Life of a fetus would be in moral effect to deny the Right of Life to that person for the entire span of his or her life. Thus it would open the door to the Coercive Socialism through the credible threat of deadly force against productive persons.

But as the history of the Soviet Union has shown, that doesn't work either.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?

(Yes, I know what Rand's position on abortion is.)

No comments: