OK, the US keeps talking about the sanctity of life, yet it countenances carrying firearms for the purpose of killing people rather than properly address the issue of crime.
Foeti are considered alive at conception in the minds of some religious people, despite the fact that spontaneous abortions do occur. Are women criminals if they miscarry?
Now, A BBC Producer has raised the topic of assisted suicide in the UK. She had lung and liver cancer when she went to Switzerland to end her life.
She made a message where she calls politicans cowards for not properly addressing this issue.
There is a contradiction in the US where people see life as sacred, yet are willing to accept that killing someone is proper in self-defence rather than use the minimum amount of force necessary to stop that threat.
Or, even more appropriately, addressing the causes of crime with something other than bumper sticker slogans.
So, US politicians are also cowards who refuse to lead. They follow.
In that point of view, a miscarriage is an act of God, not of the mother, presuming that the woman did nothing to induce the miscarriage.
ReplyDeleteFor me, the notion of the sanctity of life is important, but not absolute. We must balance the idea of sanctity against the rights of the individual, both to make individual choices and for self defense--the latter being both legal and a moral right.
Using the minimum amount of force in self defense often means using lethal force. A thug who has chosen to attack an innocent person has taken himself outside the boundaries of sanctity. We do not owe recognition of sanctity to someone who does not return that recognition.
Greg, for me a woman has the right to have an abortion if she wants, period.
ReplyDeleteAlso for me, your or I cannot decide when a person has "taken himself outside the boundaries of sanctity." That sounds like playing god.
Mikeb,
ReplyDeleteIf someone immediately threatens my life or breaks into my home, that's a good reason for me to defend myself. I don't call that playing God. That's just a human right.
Greg Camp said... If someone immediately threatens my life or breaks into my home, that's a good reason for me to defend myself. I don't call that playing God. That's just a human right.
ReplyDeleteIt is not a legitimate reason to use lethal violence. And the fact that you don't KNOW that is just ONE, but by no means the only, reason we think you are a dangerous person who should not possess a firearm.
You ARE all too willing to play God, and we think that makes you a despicable, contemptible human being.
Greg, once again you demonstrate your legal ignorance--self-defence is not a right under the common law.
ReplyDeleteSelf-defence is a justification rather than an excuse (Robinson's classification of defences)- that is the defence is asserting that the actions were not a crime at all.
Self-defense should be interpreted in a relatively conservative way to avoid creating too generous a standard of justification. The more forgiving a defense, the greater the incentive for a cynical defendant to exploit it when planning the use of violence or in explaining matters after the event.
Greg, please provide an actual legal source which backs up your claim that "Using the minimum amount of force in self defense often means using lethal force."
Once again, Greg, you are making up the law.
You are far more dangerous to yourself than you are to others; however, I would add that you are a danger to public safety.
Quite frankly, Greg, the more I read of your scribblings, the more inclined I am to support strong measures of gun control.
People like yourself really should not walk around with deadly weapons.
Greg, I hope you never have to make the life-or-death decision.
ReplyDelete