UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

General Principles

I oppose all forms of aggression. The government's primary job, over all others, is to protect the innocent from aggression, whether it be foreign aggressors (and so we have a military), or domestic aggressors (and so we have police and a justice system and laws regulating aggression). Most people agree with me on this. That is why we have laws that try to restrict homicides, which is a form of aggression. Different punishments are meted out in different states for different types of homicides. It has always been that way, for all types of homicides, until Roe v. Wade. Now, we are back to the original federalist approach, where each state gets to decide what they will prohibit and what they will allow.

Another general principle underlying our common law that everyone usually agrees with is this: We cannot (or should not) remedy a harm to a victim, by causing a greater harm to a bystander, thereby creating a second victim. We let the harm lie where it occurred, rather than causing additional harms to innocent people. This is because it is an aggression to attempt to remedy the harm on the victim by inflicting greater harm on another individual who is entirely innocent...and the job of the government is to help victims, not create victims...to prohibit aggression, not to endorse it. We address the harm by punishing the aggressor, and by providing aid an comfort to the victim. You don't create a second victim by attacking and killing an innocent bystander.

At least, that used to be a principle...I understand that you oppose this principle, and are quite happy to harm innocent bystanders because you have sympathy for the first victims. I get that, I just oppose that as a legitimate theory under common morality (even secular humanist morality) and under legitimate law.

Applying These Principles to the Issue of Abortion

The innocent unborn do not deserve to be killed, however they come to be. They are the most innocent of all human beings, and deserve the greatest protection that society can provide. So, I am against abortion of any kind. I support aid and comfort of all kinds to anyone impregnated against their will (and I happily put my money where my mouth is through charity, and I invite you to do so as well). But, aid and comfort to the victim cannot ever include aggression against another innocent party. That would be immoral under any objective standard which (1) values innocent human life, and (2) honors biological science which tells us when we have a human life.

Special Cases Don't Justify the General Case

You and I have tried to discuss your point about women impregnated against their will, and you never engage my points directly. So, I stopped discussing with you, and I reserve the right to not respond to you in the future. Everyone knows your tactics, and me calling them out is no longer required.

Why don't you engage me directly? Because you want to use justifications for abortion in a special and rare case (involuntary impregnation) to justify the general practice of abortion in the other 99.9% of the cases (voluntarily becoming pregnant, and choosing to abort right up to the last second before birth, and possibly even shortly thereafter). If you and I can't even agree on the 99%, why should we discuss the <1%? You won't even accept a compromise where abortion is only allowed in the special case. But you refuse to talk about the 99%, because your position is the same, but you have no logic to support it. Your logic only supports the <1%. You want all abortion justified, by anyone, for any reason, at any time...and in every state and nation, even if the local people don't want it. But, you will only discuss a special case; you refuse to talk about the entire issue...you run and hide whenever I bring it up. So, there is no point in discussing this issue with you. You are not honest in your position.