From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Reproductive Freedom
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 08:57:16 GMT

In article <BzH99B.6tr@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar) writes:
>>In article <Bz9JH7.MJz@cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
>>presents the writings of the ACLU:

>There is this concept called "majority rule", maybe you've heard
>of it?

There is this concept called "limited government", perhaps you've heard of it?

>>Seeking government help to safeguard personal choice is like hiring
>>the fox to guard the chickens.  The whole _purpose_ of democratic
>>political government is to supplant _personal_ choice with
>>_collective_ choice.

I completely disagree.  The whole purpose of government is supposed to be
the protections of the rights of individuals.  Why should you WANT the
to do anything more unless you want to steal your neighbor's property?
(which of course entails endorsing the principle that he ought to be allowed
to steal yours too!)

>And we have collectively chosen to allow everyone to make their own decisions
>with respect to abortion.  Too bad you can't accept it.

I can accept it just fine.  I'm pro-abortion.

>>> The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution guarantees individuals
>>> the right to personal autonomy, which means that a person's decisions
>>> regarding his or her personal life are none of the government's business.

>>If a person's toil is applied, without that person's consent, through
>>taxation, toward an end that that person does not approve, how does
>>this differ from slavery?

>It is quite different from slavery.  In slavery certain people are subjected
>to very different rules than others.  

So, your position is that the central feature which made slavery evil was that
people were treated differently rather than that they were deprived of their
freedom.  That is incredible!  So if the government deprives EVERYONE of their
freedom equally, this is acceptable for you?  What do you think about the USSR,
China, and Cambodia?  Were they OK because they enslaved ALL of their
citizens rather than just a few?

>>If civilization is to have a future, it must include widespread
>>respect for simple human dignity: allowing the other person go his or
>>her own separate way in peace.

>But we won't *pay* a fraction of a fraction of our earnings to give that other
>person some responsible guidance, so that they will not become an even
>*greater* burden on society in the future; is that it?

I cannot accept the responsibility for telling everyone else how to live 
his life!  I also don't want YOU telling me how to live MY life?  People
who don't make good choices in their personal affairs are only a burden on
"society" if "society" chooses to be responsible for them.  The government
cannot be my mommy, and I wouldn't want it to be if it could.  That is what
being a free citizen means!  If you don't want to be free, there are still
some countries which have the kind of system you are trying to push on this
country.  Why not move to Cuba?  Castro gives "responsible guidance" to his
citizens and takes responsibility for their failures.  Why don't you move
down there and leave those of us who want to be free alone?

--Brian

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.true-crime,aus.politics