By Nathan Barton
Where does my liberty stop and my fellow humans’ liberty begin? Perhaps the greatest error made by the Founding Fathers way back in the 1770s and 1780s was to cling to immoral evil ideas that liberty was compatible with enslavement of some humans – treating them as though they were not human. (That, and allowing as much government as they did.) It is an error for which many have paid much over the years.
Now, nearly two-and-a-half centuries later, we are repeating that mistake.
According to a six to one decision by the Kansas Supreme Nazgul, the State Constitution’s statement on individual rights enshrines the right of women to abort their children. So says a Washington Examiner article on 26 April 2019. The ruling says the Bill of Rights for Kansans begins with stating inalienable rights, “demonstrating the supremacy placed on the rights of individuals, preservation of these natural rights is given precedence over the establishment of government.” Therefore, the court says that the state constitution’s “declaration of natural rights, which specifically includes the rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, protects the core right of personal autonomy — which includes the ability to control one’s own body, to assert bodily integrity, and to exercise self-determination.” And this includes killing a child.
This ruling applies specifically to a Kansas act prohibiting 2nd trimester abortions. However, it would seem to apply to 3rd trimester abortions and even to partial-birth abortions. As long as the child has ANY part of their body in their mother’s body, this appears to justify killing the child, both to control, to assert, and to exercise the mother’s right to pursue happiness.
Obviously, six of the seven State Nazgul do not believe that a child in the womb is a human. Not really. Otherwise, that child would also have “human rights” including rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If human, would not the child have the same rights as the child’s mother?
Sickeningly, too many humanist, regressive, Tranzi people believe that children in the womb are NOT human. And indeed, more and more of them claim that even a freshly-born child is not really “human.” They are arguing over what age such a “thing” becomes human.
This is NOT liberty. This is a perversion of liberty. As much as slavery.
My liberty ends where your nose begins. In the eyes of the law, my life is more important than your life ONLY if you are attacking me, attempting to take my life. Then, I might take yours to protect myself against your aggressive actions. I am not allowed, by my own liberty, to take your life merely because you accidentally injure me, or if you intentionally touch (and even harm) me, At least not to a degree that my life is threatened – or if there is another way of defending myself against your actions.
Our right to have our home sacrosanct is also given precedence over the establishment of government. Yet we do not have the right to kill someone merely for trespassing and even camping out in our home.
And I am certainly not entitled to “pursue happiness” at the cost of your life. Am I?
I didn’t think so. Apparently these Kansans think that I am. Or at least, women are.
These Nazgul do not, if I understand correctly, specifically state that unborn babies are NOT human. I realize that there are many people who refuse to believe that an unborn child is human. Even if (in the words of one infamous murderer) they are “big enough to walk me home.” (If they’d been allowed to actually be born a few minutes or hours later, if they hadn’t been murdered.)
Those people are wrong. Scientific evidence is clear (not just religious belief, that a human is a human is a human, from conception to death. Regardless of whether they can survive on their own, regardless of whether they can speak, or even respond. Whether they have Alzheimer’s, are in a coma, are minus limbs, and whether or not they are a burden on someone else.
Many people once believed that slaves (black slaves in particular) were NOT human. Just as once upon a time, many people believed that anyone not a member of their family or clan or tribe were not “real humans.” Such evil beliefs led to slavery, and human sacrifice, and putting people into death chambers. This belief that unborn children are not human is no different than those other bizarre, evil ideas and practices. (Supposedly our “liberal,” regressive, “humanist” neighbors agree these are evil.)
It is ironic that Kansas already went through one bloody period (160 years ago) over those very issues. Brown v. Board of Education in Kansas started the process of ending many of the related lesser evils, like segregation.
I see all sorts of consequences from this murder-enabling action, in Kansas. Whether or not some people consider unborn (or newly-born) babies human. Among them:
- If my right to pursue happiness trumps someone else’s life, then where does this stop? How many killers will use a “happiness” argument to defend their action?
- If bodily integrity is a reason to kill a baby, then does that mean that anyone who violates my bodily integrity due to intentional actions on their part can killed to end their potential to violate my body, even for only a few weeks or months?
- Should Kansas start executing drivers who cause bodily harm to others?
- If my right to control my own body trumps the life of even a “potential human” then should I also not have the right to reject any vaccinations?
- If a sexual partner violates a bodily integrity by implanting a baby in a womb, should not that partner be punished for doing so without consent? Even executed?
I do not know what Kansans’ response will be to this, but we have taken one more step towards the complete fracturing of society. And to war.