I have to agree with Joel’s statement, “People have a right to pursue happiness in whatever way they see fit so long as they are not unjustly imposing on your rights to do likewise…” which seems to align nicely with Mr. Ashdown’s position. Attacking it with the most extreme examples, NAMBLA and abortion is a bit obtuse and obvious. The NAMBLA example has already been shot down. Mr. Ashdown has already said that he believes that abortions should be rare and limited but not illegal.

Being the youngest of my siblings, my parents learned from the school-of-hard-knocks, and taught me not only about abstinence at a young age, but birth control as I got older. Being a little older myself now, I feel it’s a very balanced approach to not only help prevent teen pregnancies but also abortions. This approach did not tempt me into promiscuity as I have seen many anti-abortionists claim. Also many of them are very concerned for said child prior to birth, but then seem unconcerned for the child.

I can’t say what the correct answer is for everyone, but as Joel said so well, “By legalizing abortion, we merely allow those who participate in society to make this decision for themselves. The legalization of abortion would not require you to have an abortion. Please explain to me how society allowing me to make such a private and personal decision for myself imposes my morality on you.”

Welcome to the discourse, I see by your contributions that seem to be a well reasoned individual. I appreciate your foresight to see that this is indeed a complex issue.
Your response is the type pro-life argument I can consider to be reasonable, and consistent with liberty and humanity. But, in a reason such as this, one must consider the premises that you are implicating. Indeed, I do agree with what you said, but perhaps, not with what you have meant. This is where the complexity sets in.

There is an unsaid premise that makes me question your otherwise sound argument, that is to say, a question of equivocation. It seems for your argument to apply to abortion there needs to be an unsaid premise that says something along the lines of: A fetus is a child; the same personhood applies to a four-year-old apply applies to a fetus regardless of the fetus is one cell or five trillion cells. It then follows that have the same rights as any child.

This challenges the very boarders of what we consider to be a person. What rigors do we subject our criteria to determine if you fall underneath self-ownership? The Philosophy of Liberty is a set of values that I have embraced to be right/good; though I realize that they are not written down in some semi-intelligent stone floating around in space somewhere. The “line” what is deserving of the right of self-ownership is arbitrary, both now, and in times past. Now-a-days most people would agree that after a baby is born, it is then, that a fetus becomes a baby, with the rights of personhood and citizenship. There are also those who believe that the fetus is a person before it is born. This is the real dilemma.

As I have said before, simply to be alive is not enough to qualify. This disqualifies viruses, tapeworms, flowers, termites and cows from preserving their rights to self-ownership and us protecting it.

How much does it mean to be a potential human, should that apply? To me this also has also little value, my seamen for instance (and excuse my vulgarity) does not have any right to special right to exist, yet is distinct from me and contains billion of potential little lives.

A being of full human-genome, should this count? Each cell in your body contains a full human architecture from start to finish. If I were to cut off my finger, should it retain self-ownership now that it is distinctly human and separate from me? The implication of this particular “draw in the line” point has interesting implications involving identical twins, clones, and even cancerous clusters in terms of self-ownership and rights.

But, all of these things (or combinations of these thing) up until this point seem somewhat odd and “missing the point” of the things that we should and shouldn’t apply. Let me propose that the line in the sand should be a little more closer to the “rational agent” category. May I suggest that rational agency is the key and necessary ingredient from all the other qualifications that give us the right of self-ownership? But, what do we define as rational agency? Is there a threshold to rational agency, or is a “you have it or you don’t sort of thing”? I do not know the answers to these questions.

These questions complicate the issue even more, and this is also where science can help us out. To me (and I can only stress enough that this is my personal opinion) it is the small amount of rational agency achieved plus the potential for more rational agency that provides and obligates our protection self-ownership to personhood. To apply that reasoning to the question at hand, I would say that (at least according to findings of scientist) that an abortion can be safely performed during some of, but not all of, a pregnancy and still preserve all rights of the mother and the fetus.

Now if it were to be true that a fetus should retain all the rights and protections of self-ownership provided from conception. (and I certainly do not think that it is) It is shaky ground to suppose that there are some circumstances that fetuses’ could be aborted ethically. A persons’ life should not be taken from them in the circumstance of rape/abuse or incest, their body belongs to them(the fetus), not mother’s nor the government’s. In this view rape is not a reason to justify murder, incest is not a reason justify murder; there is the exception of mother’s health, though. Literally speaking that fetus would be waging war/theft by use of force on a mother, who has her own rights to defend as well.

This is only the beginning of this argument; it does not end here. There are still some arguments still to be made on the rights of mother being violated by the rights of the newly found person, in terms of force of life, liberty, and health. But, enough of this…

There is much that has been said, I will think on this.

Jacob

http://www.errantskeptics.org/Quotes_by_Presidents.htm#George%20Washington

“I hate to reveal too much about myself on a Blog, but I will let you know that all but two of the quotes that I refer to above come from MY PEROSNAL LIBRARY, not some cut and paste internet job like you assert.”

I have to begin with this. This Link contains every quote you cited. Not only does it contain all the quotes, but it lists them in the same order and lists them identically. Is it your wish that we would believe you personally uncovered each of these quotes and it is merely a coincidence that they are so listed? When viewed in their original setting it’s clear to see what these quotes are. They are not, as you say, a result of your tireless research into the religious beliefs of our founding fathers. Rather they are a collection of quotes compiled in a one sided fashion so as to lead the reader to a predetermined conclusion. This is hardly charitable argumentation. Shame on you.

“Your own argument is EXACTLY why abortion SHOULD be outlawed with a few exceptions. The argument of “you can not legislate morality”, if faulty, my friend. SOMEONES morality is going to be legislated regardless of who’s it is. For example, if abortion is legalized, then those who have the morals of pro-abortion will have simply legislated their morals on everybody else who disagrees, regardless SOMEONES MORALS are being legislated.”

I’d like to respond to this specifically. You assert that someone’s morality will inevitably be legislated and therefore they might as well be yours as the founding fathers agree with you. I’m not sure I can get behind this reasoning.

First, you gave two examples of this inevitable moral legislation: The legalization of abortion and NAMBA. You claim that if abortion is not outlawed, then Pro Abortion advocates will have legislated their morality “on you” but I disagree. By legalizing abortion, we merely allow those who participate in society to make this decision for themselves. The legalization of abortion would not require you to have an abortion. Please explain to me how society allowing me to make such a private and personal decision for myself imposes my morality on you. As for your NAMBLA argument, I have little to add to Jacob’s original refutation. Our society recognizes that a child is not yet mature enough to make certain decisions for themselves. This is why an 8 year old could not, for example, enter into a legally binding contract. Because children lack the ability in many cases to understand the implications and consequences of their actions, it is not difficult for older and more worldly individuals to prey on their naiveté. NAMBLA would not be imposing their morality by legalizing adult/child sexual relationships. They would be victimizing children.

I disagree that morality must inevitably be legislated. It is our duty as a society not to legislate morality. People have a right to pursue happiness in whatever way they see fit so long as they are not unjustly imposing on your rights to do likewise. You have a right to follow the teachings of your god and believe what you wish, but you do not have the right to impose these views on others, nor use the force of law to punish those who act in a manner you find offensive no matter how many people share your beliefs. In a just society, I would likewise have the right to do as my conscience dictates so long as I cause no harm to you. Is this not a preferable system to the one you propose?

In a number of your posts you challenge Mr. Ashdown to show you where in the constitution abortion is discussed. After receiving no responses to your challenge, you indicate that he is mistaken in his claim that the constitution allows a woman to make this decision for herself. I do not presume to speak on his behalf, but this is my response.

In 1791, ten amendments were added to the United States Constitution for the purpose of protecting the people from unjust treatment by their Government. This Bill of Rights, as it was called, explicitly enumerated a number of rights to be retained by the people. The freedom to practice one’s religion for example, as well as the right to bear arms. As you are a historian, you are no doubt aware that there was not unanimous agreement concerning whether or not the Bill of Rights should be added to the constitution. Alexander Hamilton in particular was troubled that by explicitly stating some rights. It might be implied that our government had the power to infringe on rights not protected and lead to an unnatural perception of the role of government. This, in part, is why the ninth and tenth ammendments specifically provide that those powers not explicitly granted to the Federal Government are reserved for the people or the state. It is not necessary for the constitution to explicity provide for a “right to abortion” as the Federal Government has not been granted the power to make this decision. This is one of many rights that are reserved for the people. The very fact that the constitution does not mention abortion would seem to indicate that this is among the many rights I have not abdicated to my government. Is there a reason I should not think this is so?

Anyway, these were just some thoughts off the top of my head after having read your arguments. I’d be interested in hearing your response.

Mr. Ashdown,
I’m ashamed to say that, until recently, I hadn’t heard of you. After having played with your wiki a bit, I’ve been pleased to discover that we share many of the same views. While I don’t agree with you on everything, your views are a breath of fresh air in our current political environment and I am most anxious to see how your campaign will develop in the coming months. I wish you all the best.

It is clear to me now that you have indeed “done your homework”, and are not the ignoramus I had thought you to be. Though I remain skeptical as to you conclusion in the matter, I am not closed to it. It does strike me that I MAY have bought into a revisionist history as you might have suggested. (Though, I think this requires some research to make sure that you are not the one buying the revisionist history.)

Even though I bow to your knowledge, (respectfully) I still question your ability to approach the question neutrally, which either means of two things: 1. I am wrong, and you are so well read that your knowledge puts you close to writing your own book. (in other word, you are just right and I am just plain wrong) or 2. You find or seek any evidence to support your original claim, disregarding the objective rhetorical analysis. I do not suppose one or the other, which is why I choose do more studying.

For example your Jefferson quote: “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” Somebody who wanted to believe that Jefferson was a Christian would say to themselves “See, here’s the proof” but an more objective POV might question why Jefferson just didn’t say “I am a Christian”. Why would he tack on the phrase “that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus”? Why would go so far as to specifically redefine what he called a Christian? One motivation would be that he a politician, and he wanted people to know that even though he isn’t a Christian in the sense that he believe that Jesus was a god who saved all mankind and therefore should be worshiped, but, He may want to convey to the receiver of the statement, that he believe that Jesus was a good guy, with good ideas and he agrees with him. This would warrant the phrase “a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus” instead of “a disciple of Jesus” which is why he might go so far as to give a non-standard definition of a Christian. You may be skeptical of this consideration (which is just fine) but consider the fact Gandhi said almost the same thing word for word, and yet maintained his devout Hinduistic beliefs. This too could apply Jefferson and Deism… There are also other ways to analyze this statement, not just the way I have proposed.

“If you were educated in the public schools today you will hear the false statements that the Founding Fathers were Deist’s.” Are you implicating that public school is engaging in an anti-Christian conspiracy to cover the true nature of founding fathers? If you are, you are just going to have to take that up in a different form.

Though we have far flown from our original topic, (for which, I bear no malice) to topic more to your forte’ I still want it to be clear that even if you are correct. It does nothing to either help or hurt my original position which is: (and I quote)
“One thing is clear; the words “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” certainly do appear in the constitution, which reflect a mix if the liberal philosophies of both Thomas Hobbes and John Locke (among others). The framers clearly wanted a government that took and used the claims of Social Contract Ethics, to enable the Philosophy of Liberty.”

I am pleased with the level of discourse that you and I are having, you are well read and I hope that with some work on my part I can participate on a similar level with you. I will endeavor to educate myself, perhaps in the end I will end up agreeing with you.

Jacob

For example, as President of the United States, Jefferson signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia tribe wherein he provided—at the government’s expense—Christian missionaries to the Indians. In fact, Jefferson himself declared, “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” While many might question this claim, the fact remains that Jefferson called himself a Christian, NOT A DEIST.

Jefferson was also known to sign presidential documents, closing them with the appellation, “In the Year of our Lord Christ.” There are many similar surprising facts about Jefferson that are fully documented historically, but that have been ignored for the past 50 years.

Yet many folks look to other writings, or studies INSTEAD of looking at what the F.F did and wrote themselves! I have over 100 historical books on the founding of our country, one set of which is arguably the most comprehensive collection of George Washingtons writtings, (compiled into 12 volumes) By Jared Sparks.

In one of the books Jared Sparks looked into the religious character of George Washington, and included numerous letters written by the friends, associates, and family of Washington which testified of his religious character. Based on that extensive evidence, Sparks concluded:

To say that he [George Washington] was not a Christian would be to impeach his sincerity and honesty. Of all men in the world, Washington was certainly the last whom any one would charge with dissimulation or indirectness [hypocrisies and evasiveness]; and if he was so scrupulous in avoiding even a shadow of these faults in every known act of his life, [regardless of] however unimportant, is it likely, is it credible, that in a matter of the highest and most serious importance [his religious faith, that] he should practice through a long series of years a deliberate deception upon his friends and the public? It is neither credible nor possible.

Jacob, you have not re-written history, but you have bought the deceptions of those who have. Yet the “Deist” assertions are VERY easy to counter and prove as false, with the founders OWN WORDS, WRITTINGS, and LIFE HABITS! I appologize for my sharpness before, I am usually pretty defensive of this issue, as you can tell. I hate what political correctness has done to education and history in this country.

Since you sir, gave me some reading assignments, I too will give you some. Many of the writtings mentioned are also in my library:

For much more on George Washington and the evidences of his strong faith, examine the following sources:

The Writings of George Washington, Jared Sparks.

George Washington, The Religious Opinions of Washington, E. C. M’Guire.

William Johnson, George Washington The Christian (1917).

William Jackson Johnstone, How Washington Prayed (New York: The Abingdon Press, 1932).
The Messages and Papers of the Presidents, James D. Richardson.

George Washington, The Maxims of Washington (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1855).

You said: “a few quotes from your aforementioned non Judeo-Christian Founding Fathers (Jefferson and Washington) or “framers” as you so put it.” Again, you have not read what I have said. I did not claim that the were “non Judeo-Christian”. I simply disputing what you said which, “It is a absolute fact that the U.S was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs.” This is a false equivocation. If you must know both Jefferson was a self-avowed deist. While Washington had more Christian leanings (though most historians argue he was a deist as well), yet he had disgust with alot of things in religion, but was none-the-less a very spiritual person. Both believed strongly in Liberty.

While these at least some of these quote may be real, (and I can assure you the Smithsonian Inst. has disproved at least one of the quotes off the top of my head) These quotes have a context, a place, and a time. I too can find quotes that support my claim as well, but since quotes are worth not much alone, we go nowhere. Any quote you find would not dispute my claims about these two and liberty, and that is my claim.

I encourage you to find and read general histories of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, instead of scouring the internet for a position that is favorable to yours. (It turns out that just about anyone can post whatever the heck they want on the internet) This will give broader understanding of who these people are. Do not do this in the spirit prove either me or yourself right or wrong. Try a couple books, at the library or start with the http://www.wikipedia.org articles. (I’ve read them both) Wallow in the complexity of who these people were and what they stood for.

Respectfully,

Jacob

I am not a zealot in any way, but until you get your fact on history correct, I can not have a debate. It is like debating a child, who throws things out there in hopes that others will believe them and not check the facts. So with that said, here are a few quotes from your aformentioned non Judeo-Christian Founding Fathers (Jefferson and Washington) or “framers” as you so put it.

“Almighty and eternal Lord God, the great Creator of heaven and earth, and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; look down from heaven in pity and compassion upon me Thy servant, who humbly prorate myself before Thee.” George Washington’s prayer at Valley Forge

“Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.”–George Washington, ca. 1789, Maxims of Washington, ed. John F. Schroeder (Mt. Vernon: Mt. Vernon Ladies Association, 1942), p. 106.

“The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man, will endeavor so to live, and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country.” General George Washington, July 9, 1776

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports . . . And let us indulge with caution the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion . . . Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle.” From President George Washington’s Farewell Address

Of all systems of morality, ancient of modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to be so pure as that of Jesus.” Thomas Jefferson To William Canby, 1813

I hold the precepts of Jesus as delivered by Himself, to be the most pure, benevolent and sublime which have ever been preached to man…” President Thomas Jefferson

“I have always said and always will say that the studious perusal of the Sacred Volume will make better citizens, better fathers, better husbands… the Bible makes the best people in the world.” President Thomas Jefferson

My views- – - are the result of a lifetime of inquiry and reflection, and very different from the anti-Christian imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference of all others—” Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush On April 21, 1803

“I am a real Christian, that is to say, a cisciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our Creator.” Thomas Jefferson wrote on the front of his Bible.