Guns and “The Right to Life”

Shooting while pregnant (courtesy

Anti-abortion advocates call themselves “Pro-Life.” They insist that a fetus has a “right to life.” There’s more than a little debate on that point, but not at . . .

Check out Trumpcare’s Rx: Unwanted babies and no health insurance and the last paragraph of  N.J. anti-abortion marchers turn out with Trump on their side. And yet this is the same news organization that writes . . .

What will no longer fly in this country are NRA lackeys who neglect public safety as children are being slaughtered, while advancing a guns-everywhere agenda that excludes no one – domestic abusers, felons, terror suspects, the mentally ill, bar patrons, churchgoers, students and teachers.

Their constituents no longer want lectures defending the right to own assault rifles from weather-vane politicians who take NRA blood money and refuse to defend the right to live without fear. Or live, period.

In On guns, N.J. Congressman’s rhetoric doesn’t match his horrid record the editorial board reckons it’s OK to degrade and destroy Garden Staters’ natural, civil and constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms because it threatens their “right to live.” A right that somehow doesn’t extend to the unborn.

Hang on. Before addressing that apparent hypocrisy, note that there is no legal “right to life.”

Yes, the Declaration of Independence acknowledges “the right to life….” But it’s a declaration, not a legal document. It no more codified the “right to life” than it did “the pursuit of happiness.”

The U.S. Constitution makes no mention of a right to life. No surprise there; the government commits executions on both the state and federal level (e.g., Timothy McVeigh).

Ironically, the Second Amendment is the closest Americans get to a legal “right to life.” The prohibition against government regulation of a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms establishes their right (and ability) to use the best possible tools to defend their life. And thus protect it.

So the “right to life” is a moral construct. And a pretty good one, too. While we wait to see how someone can be both pro-abortion and anti-gun, one thing’s for certain: there is no right to live without fear.

That’s a monumentally preposterous idea. Impractical, subjective and incredibly dangerous.

Codifying a “right to live without fear” would create a fascist state. The state could ban just about anything as fear-inducing: movies, TV shows, textbooks, protests, even harsh words…this blog. Yes, the First Amendment would be the first to go.

After that, pit bulls, pet rats, spiders and snakes? Muslims? NRA T-shirts? The NRA? I bet and the rest of the civilian disarmament industrial complex would have to work hard not to agree with that one (until the state banned them).

If you think about it, suggesting that Americans have a right to live without fear affirms their gun rights. Gun ownership does an excellent job of reducing Americans’ fear of criminals, crazies and terrorists. Not to mention statists who justify homicide of any sort, kind or description.


  1. avatar Robert says:

    I consider myself Pro-Life for the very reason that I do indeed carry a gun. I believe that I am one of many who have the ability to protect our children and other innocent people should a possible danger present itself.

    1. avatar Lost Down South says:

      I 100% agree. But there’s no perfect world.

      – Should people abort for convenience? No. Think ahead..if you can. Some can’t. Future time orientation is not a universal capability.

      – Should people who can’t or won’t take care of kids carry them to term? That not for me to decided. However, children can effectively be aborted after they are born. Through my previous work in Social Services (years ago), I had gotten to know many emergency workers, visited “clients”, and read enough reports to see true evil perpetrated on undeserving children. Abuse, torture, neglect. Keeps you up at night…and drinking. That’s why I left Social Services.

      – So, adoption? That’s a swell concept. Doesn’t always work well. Based on what I have seen and read, children should not be adopted outside their genotype. There are so many problems with cross-race adoption. Hyperbole here: should a chocolate lab adopt a penguin? Race and culture exist. Deal with it.

      This is gun board, so I’ll shut up after this…millions of aborted children. I hate the idea. Really. What I hate more is the thought of millions of children with a life of physical and mental torture. The Dalai Lama has said the only way to prevent a life of suffering is not to create it.

    2. avatar henry bowman says:

      I will be “That guy” but fuck it, it needs to be said.

      Abortion targets groups that are more likely to vote Democratic.

      Out of the millions aborted, more then half, it would shock me if it was under 75% of the total number was that of groups who vote Democrat by many times over.

      Why do you think the left is pushing Immigration harder and harder? Its because their voter blocs just love to either not have kids fast enough, aborts, or does not have any..

      Turns out Roe Vs Wade was a double edged sword.

      Some might call me cold hearted, etc but I am down allowing my emotions, or “humanity” or “compassion”or any other value to be used against me by the enemies of humanity.

  2. avatar Robert says:

    I fear for my life every time in get into my car and enter the flow of traffic. That fear keeps me alert to possible dangers which are more numerous than we may believe. Without that fear I would have been dead a long time ago. (Yeah, I’m an old guy.)

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      Just think, you often share a double-yellow-lined road with opposing traffic closing at speeds besting 100 MPH, with people (in other vehicles) that profess that “Societal Agreement” is not a ‘thing’.

      Don’t bother telling me what your credit rating is, if you cheat on your wife.

      1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

        There is no such thing as a universal “social contract” or agreement. Never was, and never will be. Some may wish to make such a contract on a voluntary basis with others, of course. But never as a given obligation, regardless of the circumstances.

        My “social contract” with every other human being on the planet is the vow that I will never initiate violence/force on others. AND that I will defend myself to the greatest extent of my ability should anyone initiate such force against me.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          That last part IS (most of) the ‘universal’ Societal Agreement.

          “Society is a word often thrown around like one of its antithesis [1], chaos. Chaos, in its prime form, originally meant far more than great disorder, it meant the complete absence of measure; thereby being oxy-moronic, since giving a name to “chaos” effectively annuls its own definition.
          “Society”, is like that. Through its misuse it has been expanded in meaning, to the point that its original intent has been diluted, effectively removing any singular definition from the same.

          Society, in primal terms, is the name of the treaty, in the suit for peace, for mankind. The term treaty is actually improper here as well, since society is the defining term we place on mankind’s ARMISTICE within itself. Society is the name of the cessation of hostilities within the species of man.
          An illustrative example, of its result, is the average U.S. citizens’ positive expectation of obtaining a fresh doughnut, hot cup of coffee, and a current newspaper from the local convenience store, on their way to work.
          How far removed from that, is the same individual surviving the natural elements of the night before, and waking to the concern over whether or not armed conflict will be required to maintain the possession of a rudimentary shelter, and the proceeds of the days’ forage and hunt.
          Not to mention, the prospect of protecting the ‘possession’ of a desired mate, and resultant offspring.
          The exact distance, between those two possibilities, is often called “society.”
          Armistice, however, is not peace, although peace, too, survives under the rules of armed conflict. The most basic of these rules was codified by Carl Von Clausewitz in his treatise “On War”, in which he wrote that peaceable resolution to conflict is only effective, and should only be sought and relied upon, when it is certain that the other party will never resort to arms, with the implication that that is never [2].
          Again, society’s armistice is not peace; it is the reduction of conflict to an illimitably sustainable level. The record, for cessation of hostilities, is contained in laws, at times supported by documentation [3]. The future and posterity are often drivers for a society. However, an individual’s reason is the reason, the expression of which is only a compilation of approximates [4]. Yet, no man, interested in the fate of a society, should assume that a society is either a resignation of will to the other party or the removal of the obligation to throw it down [move to unsustainable conflict] [5] [6].
          Society, is armistice between individuals, however, societies can be linked, and this linking can prevent the need for constant negotiation and deliberation, amongst and between them. Historically, there have been inclinations between groups of men [mankind] to form mutually supportive alliances. The scope of these alliances has, on occasion, encompassed the globe. ” [J.M. Thomas R., TERMS, 2012, PP 20-21]

        2. avatar MamaLiberty says:

          Joe, the majority of the people in the world WANT, one way or another, to control the lives and property of others. They are happy to use the pressure and power of all sorts of involuntary government – including “voting” – to accomplish that. The criminal and parasite groups have no problem with using force against anyone around them, for whatever reason they conceive. They can’t even cooperate among themselves as they split up the swag, fighting tooth and nail for that power over others.

          No “universal” social contract exists, and never will – especially as long as some/most people have the desire/lust to control the lives and property of others.

          My simple promise of non-aggression, minding my own business, is exceedingly rare in this world. And I’m certainly not obligated by any superior power to live that way… I choose this life as the best possible option for ME, as well as everyone else with whom I come in contact. Each person must choose for him/herself.

        3. avatar Joe R. says:

          “Joe, the majority of the people in the world WANT, one way or another, to control the lives and property of others. They are happy to use the pressure and power of all sorts of involuntary government – including “voting” ”

          Mama, NONE of the people want such power to be unilaterally directed against themselves. When it reaches an intolerable point, they direct most, if not all of their attention and energies to fing that sh_t up. Everything else is varying intensities of illimitably sustainable conflict. That requires continuing premium payments of positive pressure on each other to maintain. A great example is the FL school shooter. He decided one day to not do Societal Agreement and nobody pushed back in time.

          The 9/11 hijacking is another stark example, it was a nice bright sunny day, all the way up until it wasn’t. It’s not that you can always push back appropriately, or in a timely manner, just that you are not so shocked or stunned when people abandon Societal Agreement.

        4. avatar MamaLiberty says:

          Joe, you are not paying attention for some reason. No, most people do not want to be controlled personally, but most have no real problem controlling OTHERS, especially in politics. Remember all the people who insist that our right to self defense should be controlled by the government, one way or another? Now add everything else this non-voluntary government controls… right down to our food, medicine, how tall our grass grows. Tell me… if nobody wanted to control all of that for other people… why would it be happening?

          The ONLY goal of government is control, of everything and everyone. If people didn’t believe that the government had some legitimate authority to do that, and refused to be controlled… If everyone was minding their own business and had no stake in trying to control the lives and property of their neighbors… the non-voluntary government would melt down a crack and vanish.

        5. avatar Joe R. says:

          Non-voluntary things melt down a crack very often (every time they’re given the opportunity). There’s not one government on earth that’s in the same form it was in 60 years ago, much less 100 years ago. If you have a job, you are likely at work. How’d you get there? You did so because people LET you, and you let others. That’s not compliance with anything other than your own self-contained moral compass (yes, you fear retribution / punishment for any negative actions, but you jump that curb very easily when SHTF, and Sh_t can Hit The Fan at any time someone else says so). Yes, we have laws, and most people stick to upholding them, but no one would do it unilaterally, and vigilantism is a thing in every country and culture.

          We both say we “let” each other “live” (under the ‘law’). You’re version says we slip-by each other gracefully, mine says we lean-in on each other [equally] constantly.
          “As the use of physical power to the utmost extent by no means excludes the cooperation of the intelligence, it follows that he who uses force unsparingly, without reference to the bloodshed involved, must obtain a superiority if his adversary uses less vigor in its application. The former then dictates the law to the latter, and both proceed to extremities to which the only limitations are those imposed by the amount of counter-acting force on each side. This is the way in which the matter must be viewed, and it is to no purpose, it is even against one’s own interest, to turn away from the consideration of the real nature of the affair because the horror of its elements excites repugnance”. (Clausewitz, “On War” pg. 102)

          “Focusing more directly on the rule of law, it has to be understood that written law, legislation, and the rule of law is deferential and subservient to the parties of a society in a manner that is not also totally supportive of society, and as such here it is not necessary to be a defined term.
          Law, though, does rest on the bedrock of each society, [each] society does not rest on the bedrock of law, and again, it cannot be stressed enough that they are not necessarily mutually supportive. Remove all of the aforementioned exhibition of what law is, and the pressure of societal agreement will remain to build the next incarnation of law upon.” [J.M. Thomas R., TERMS, 2012, Pg. 37]

  3. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

    No right to life!!! Does this mean that government is not God?!?!?!

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      For many Progressives and Liberals, government is quite literally their god. Said Progressives and Liberals look to their god — government — to define right and wrong and provide for their every need. Their “duly elected” and “duly appointed” bureaucrats, politicians, and political bodies can enact any rules/laws they desire and carrying out those rules/laws is always “right” — and opposing is always “wrong”.

      Why such Progressives and Liberals refuse to recognize that government is made of fallible, corruptible, selfish people is beyond me. Perhaps they are as young children and facing reality is too frightening for them to bear.

      1. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

        Ironic, no?

        Those that adamantly profess to be neoteric, have no need of religion and denounce those of faith as being mentally ill, all too often gravitate towards their own forms of zealotry. Many have elevated what they believe to be science(In reality a mere bastardization of the concept) to divine directive. Social justice has become their crusade, agenda driven scientists their prophets and government their god. The concepts of global warming, social inequality and state benevolence are dogma that only an apostate would question.

        It’s almost as though a need for religion and deities are ingrained within the human psyche. This along with a desire to dominate and control through such institutions and doctrine. Perhaps all are just too human, but those that cannot recognize their own or, as uncommon_sense so cogently put it, other’s fallibility are the most immature, dangerous and hypocritical of humanity.

        This is not to cast aspersions upon the devout of any faith, or even atheists of none. Esoteric Inanity(When not practicing his ancestral heritage of Norse Paganism) is a self professed agnostic with apatheistic tendencies. Therefore, he often couldn’t know and doesn’t care.

  4. avatar Joe R. says:

    ” Yes, the Declaration of Independence acknowledges “the right to life.” But it’s a declaration, not a legal document. It no more codified the “right to life” than “the pursuit of happiness.” ”

    Nah, FU stupid douche (and I’m being kind).



  5. avatar Felixd says:

    This is the beginning of a great article/argument in defining actual civil rights as opposed to perceived rights. Its the type of work that clarifies reality and rightfully diminishes the dreams of the inexperienced. Keeping moving in this vein.

  6. avatar former water walker says:

    I am pro-life. I am equally pro-gun. I cannot protect the innocent without guns. Simple…except if you’re a shrieking Floriduh teen who is decidedly NOT innocent.

  7. avatar Bloving says:

    Y’know… Momma up there makes a pretty good case for the HPA… sound travels better through liquid and solid mediums than air – she can wear ear pro but the bun (loaf?) in her oven can’t.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      Momma’s got a wheel-gun. She’d do better with a Suppressor on a semi-auto.

      She should squeeze in a few competition matches. With her lowered center of gravity, slightly increased mass and baby/amniotic/placenta inertial dampening device she’s got, she should do awesome.

    2. avatar Bob h says:

      Looks like a 22lr BUT babies in the womb are sensitive to loud noises. My wife h is pregnant and has chosen to forego range days along with sushi, rare steak and caffeine.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        . . . and “wrestling”?

  8. avatar Joe R. says:

    NJ’s gotta go.

    Buldoze the MF over the mouth of the Hudson for hydro-electric power to irradiate Manhattan for de-louse.

  9. avatar Chief Master says:

    How about no person being deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law? “Life” is put before all the other liberties enshrined in the Constitution.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:


      The only one’s who have been able to figure out how to use “rights” without life, are POS (D)NC voter registration groups, and POS (D) voters.

    2. avatar Ralph says:

      “How about no person being deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law?”

      Which means that a person may be deprived of life with due process of law. In other words, a person does not have a “right to life,” only a right to due process. Anything a person has can be taken away by the G, as long as it goes through the motions.

      1. avatar Chief Master says:

        I agree with you there, Ralph. Technically, you could say that you don’t have a right to any of the liberties in the Constitution, only to due process.
        My point is that (contrary to the assertions of this article) the right to life is codified in the Constitution, and that just like the other liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights, it can only be deprived after due process. Farago’s idea that the right to keep and bear arms is more legally sacrosanct than the right to life is simply incorrect. Both are Constitutionally protected, and neither can be denied without due process.

      2. avatar Joe R. says:

        All “rights” are protections from government.

        The government cannot interdict your exercise of your lawful use of your rights without due process.

  10. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    This opens an extremely important can of worms.

    The U.S. Constitution and state constitutions do not actually spell out everything. What is the foundation for everything else?

    I would love to see a U.S. Constitutional amendment which emphatically states a simple legal basis/philosophy for all legal proceedings (federal and state) — something that puts a huge STOP to all of this legislative fiat garbage which ruins people’s lives when no one actually suffered any injury or loss (or ruins lives with ludicrous penalties and prison sentences which are disproportionate to the injury or loss).

    And I would like to see another U.S. Constitutional amendment which utterly and totally prohibits federal and state governments from engaging in entitlement activities. No government should be able to collect any taxes for any entitlements. And no government should be able to distribute money, supplies, or services to benefactors, either domestic or foreign. If all of the alleged “charity” that is our entitlement programs is so fantastic, than reputable charities will arise to serve the needs and people can donate to their heart’s content.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      Ending stare decisis is what you seek. It is nothing more than an excuse for judges to be lazy and avoid ‘re-hashing’ (ie dutifully scrutinuzing) past arguments (in case they were decided poorly). Over time, precendents become logically bulletproof or they fail, instead of being increasingly justified by age & blind citation alone.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers.

        — H. L. Mencken

  11. avatar neiowa says:

    Declaration of Independence iS a legal document. All other US law is derived from it. There is no mechanism to change (amend) it. It stands on it’s own.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Read the preamble of the Declaration. It deals with separation from England and the rest of the document sets out the reasons why. Some of the concepts in the Declaration — for example, “life, liberty and happiness” have been replaced by “life, liberty and property” in the Due Process Clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments. And “all men are created equal” didn’t apply to women or to those adjudged not to be fully-fledged men, such as slaves.

      So, yes, the Declaration is a legal document, but it isn’t law. There’s a difference.

  12. avatar Hal J. says:

    Leaning Libertarian, I’m both pro-gun rights and pro-abortion rights.

    1. avatar Tile Floor says:

      I thought I was the only one on here. Be prepared for a shitstorm though.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Tile Floor,

        Suppose that your neighbor delivered a baby at home 2 minutes ago and declares that she is going to promptly kill her newborn baby because she does not want it or cannot afford it. Would you quietly respect her right to choose to kill her baby? If not, why would you respect her right to choose to kill her baby 5 minutes earlier before her baby exited the birth canal?

        I do not ask such questions to be annoying. I ask such questions because so many people resist the fact that intentionally killing a baby is always wrong. And the result: our nation has killed over 58 million babies since 1973. If that is not a reason to speak out, I don’t know what is.

        1. avatar Tile floor says:

          You presume that I would be okay with a full term child being aborted. I am not. I think that past 12 weeks shouldn’t be permitted, at that point it is more a human than a simple embryo. It’s not capable of surviving on its own outside of the mother at 12 weeks.

          So instead of abortion, what do you suggest? Are you going to provide a home for these unwanted kids? Do you volunteer with young mothers to help them find their way with a child they can’t financially support? Are you willing to pay a higher tax rate so that the state can find these kids homes? If pro life people put together a strong bill to allow the adoption process to become much more streamlined and affordable I’d be more inclined to hear their arguments. But just saying “carry it to term and then deal with it on your own” is bullshit.

          What you fail to understand is that a abortion is not used as a form of birth control in the overwhelming majority of cases. Should the women that can’t afford or be responsible enough to raise kids keep their legs together to avoid having kids? Sure, you bet. But a lot of times these kids that are unwanted live miserable lives because there is no one there for them. It’s tragic, but true.

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Tile floor,

          “So instead of abortion, what do you suggest? Are you going to provide a home for these unwanted kids?”
          Yes, my spouse and I adopted a baby that the mother did not want.

          “Do you volunteer with young mothers to help them find their way with a child they can’t financially support?”
          My volunteering is limited to donating gently used children’s clothing and toys because adopting our child was a GINORMOUS expense — both in terms of money and the time/energy we have put forth to repair the emotional trauma in our adopted child.

          “Are you willing to pay a higher tax rate so that the state can find these kids homes?”
          No because:
          (1) I have already given immensely in our own adoption (see above).
          (2) There are far more families who want to adopt than children available for adoption and those families can cover the expenses of adoption, just like my family covered the expense of our adoption.
          (3) Charities should be available to help families with marginal incomes to adopt.

          “If pro life people put together a strong bill to allow the adoption process to become much more streamlined and affordable …”
          I can say first hand that the existing processes seem to be unnecessarily difficult, arduous, expensive, and risky — and should be streamlined as you say. Unfortunately, streamlining seems to be impossible for several reasons that are beyond the scope of this blog.

          “But just saying ‘carry it to term and then deal with it on your own’ is bullshit.”
          The basic answer here is personal responsibility. If you are not capable of “dealing with a child on your own”, either line-up voluntary help or do not risk a pregnancy. The last thing we should be doing is killing the innocent baby because the mother was irresponsible. The mother and father should bear the brunt of any consequences for their failures, not the baby.

    2. avatar Texican says:

      Hal J., I’m not here to flame you as Tile Floor suggests but to reason with you. A baby in the womb is a completely separate human from the mother. If this were not the case the different mechanisms such as the placenta would not be necessary as it keeps the mother’s immune system from destroying the baby. Many miscarriages are caused by a failure of the placenta and the other mechanisms designed to protect the baby from the mother’s immune system defenses.
      Additionally, the baby shows movement in as little as 8 weeks in the womb. A single cell in the human body is more complex than any man made factory. So we’re supposed to believe that an organism made of many cells is not a living being? Last, but not least, God says he knew you in the womb. Really, He knew you before that since he knows everything. I’m glad my parents didn’t choose the abortion option. How about you?

    3. avatar Ralph says:

      I’m with Hal J. and Tile Floor as both pro-gun and pro-abortion. If a woman doesn’t want her child to be born, neither do I. OTOH, if the child is born and grows up to attack me, then he will wish he had never been born.

      Just don’t call me “pro choice.” Unless there was rape or incest involved or there was a failure of contraception, the woman made her choice when she let the guy ride bareback.

      1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

        Rape and incest. Good grief. Those are just expedients; emotional instability-relieving rationalizations.

        Tell me, what BAC thwarts consent and transforms the intercourse into rape? Don’t say the legal limit, because that’s just a presumption. One’s intoxication is specific to you and can exist well below the legal limit. Really, any universal limit is going to be more or lese arbitrary and certainly not accurate in every case.

        As for incest, what family relations count? Dad? Brother? Late night, sneaky, weaselly uncle? OK. What about third cousin, twice removed? What arbitrary degee of consanguinity constitutes incest, whereas one shade removed from that promotes the intercourse from “incest” up to “still kinda sorta creepy, but not a huge deal, so we’ll allow it”, would you say.

        After that, explain what moral culpability a child conceived under these circumstances has, such that he or she may be killed without compunction, but killing babies conceived under other circumstances must live?

        When does a rape or incest-conceived child finally lose that lable and its associated license to be killed, anyway? We know you’re good in the first trimester, but what about the second trimester? What about birth? How about age 20 years? Where in a lifetime’s timeline does it become no longer OK to kill a child conceived during rape or incest, whatever those are (see above)? And by what standard do you draw that arbitrary line?

      2. avatar Salty Bear says:

        Why do people feel the need to say “rape and incest”? Rape is forcible penetration without consent. Incest is sexual relations between people who are closely related by blood. Rape is always wrong, but incest has no moral implications (except, as with all sex, when it’s rape). Conflating rape and incest is like conflating rape and sex between unrelated people.

    4. avatar Jjimmyjonga says:


    5. avatar Rob says:

      Not alone. I am also for freedom.

  13. avatar qwert says:

    I am pro choice. I choose to kill democrats and libtards.
    Wait, that is not the right kind of choice who i want to murder?
    At least i personally can say that killing a democrat is not as bad as killing an innocent baby. The baby coul’ve become a great person one day, the democrat could not…

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      They were probably LaRouche Democrat toad-frogs anyway.

  14. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    ” Yes, the Declaration of Independence acknowledges “the right to life.” But it’s a declaration, not a legal document. It no more codified the “right to life” than “the pursuit of happiness.”

    TTAG cracks me up. Any other day, TTAG proclaims that the Constitution is but one foundation upon which the right to keep and bear arms lies. Sure, it’s a constitutional right, but that’s redundant, as it’s also a natural, civil, human, and God given right, too. Take away the Constitution and there goes the 2A, but the fundamental right to self defense predates, transcends, and survives the Constitution.

    Yet, when it’s some liberal referring to a right to live or to life, then all of a sudden TTAG’s position is that if it isn’t in the Constitution, then it doesn’t exist. Wait. What? How can there even be such things as human rights, if there isn’t a right to be a human being?

    How can a human being be endowed–by his Creator, no less!–with rights to various things, but that human being has no right to his own life? If that’s the case, then the rights possessed by the human are a pretty shoddy sort, if their existence and validity can be scratched out just ending the human who possesses them, since he has no right to his own life. Curious, that.

    By the way, the Constitution does indeed mention a right to life, right there in the 5th amendment. You may not be denied your life, liberty, or property without due process. Not being denied it presupposes that you already have it (life), are entitled to it, and have a right to it.

    1. avatar Jjimmyjonga says:

      …and individual’s “life” starts when? When is that “life” to be considered separate and unique from the mother and thus have said “rights”? And, what about those formed with no human body? I don’t know the answer, and I certainly don’t tell others how it’s defined – but I’m not an angry person either calling others I don’t know foul and vile names if they don’t agree with me

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:


        When is a human life a human life? When he/she has his/her own unique DNA and we would call him/her life if we found him/her on another planet. In somewhat specific terms: his/her cells are taking in nutrients and expelling waste products and his/her cells are attempting to repair/reproduce and sustain his/her life for the foreseeable future. (Note that a few more descriptors are necessary — I kept the list short to be consistent with this blog format.)

        Arguments to the contrary are quite literally arbitrary and situational/circumstantial. For example some people claim that a baby is not a human life until it reaches a certain developmental milestone. Why? Why not 20 seconds or 20 fewer cells before the milestone? If we allow circumstances to define whether or not a human life is a human life, we enable a holocaust. And I, for one, do not want to enable and see a holocaust.

        If I misunderstood your comment and my reply makes no sense, I apologize.

  15. avatar Tom Moscone says:

    All true Americans are Pro-Abortion. Not “pro-choice”, but fully pro-abortion. The government should pay women to have abortions, as long as they also agree to have a IUD installed at the same time. If you are a pregnant woman, the government will pay for your abortion, plus pay to have an IUD implanted in you, plus hand you $5,000 cold hard cash. The only caveat is that if you ever want to have the IUD removed, you need to pay back the $5,000, plus the cost of the original abortion and IUD procedure, plus interest, plus the cost of the IUD removal procedure. It is perfect. Any person who would take the money over their child is a person who was going to cost the state 10x as much or more in welfare, education, and prison for their children.

    Anyone who opposes this policy isn’t a true American, they are a poor moocher living on the welfare state with whores for daughters.

  16. avatar GS650G says:

    A society can be judged by how it values and protects it’s weakest members.

  17. avatar IdahoBoy says:

    I come here for the gun reviews, and occasionally get sucked into this crap.

    Would it be possible to create another site, called TTAA, for those folks who want to talk about the pros and cons of abortion?

    1. avatar Warlocc says:

      I was about to post the same thing. Not all gun owners are anti-abortion, religious, or even conservative.

      Don’t alienate allies.

  18. avatar Nelson says:

    Hey Farago, you’re 100% WRONG:

    “Yes, the Declaration of Independence acknowledges “the right to life….” But it’s a declaration, not a legal document. It no more codified the “right to life” than it did “the pursuit of happiness.”

    No, as THE 1st item to be recorded into the federal register, contrary to popular statist misconception, The Declaration of Independence is THE FIRST LAW to be made, post ratification of the Constitution.

    It is your right and duty to alter or abolish an aberrant govt. Which, frankly nullifies ANY ‘law’ that claims ‘sedition’ and ‘overthrow’ of govt is ‘illegal.’


Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email