Life Ethics by Dr. Beverly Nuckols

Last weekend a group of TexasGOPVote bloggers gathered in Austin, Texas to discuss various issues being faced by conservatives and what the core ideology of a conservative blog should be.  The resounding issue was determined to be that of standing on the side of protecting human life. Following are some excerpts from this fascinating and thought provoking article about Life Ethics by TexasGOPVote blogger and Dr. Beverly Nuckols.

TexasGOPVote's Dr. Beverly Nuckols

TexasGOPVote's Dr. Beverly Nuckols

If you crack the egg of a bird on the Endangered Species List, it won’t matter that the bird was a fetus or embryo. You’ve still broken Federal law. Why is the species of an (unhatched) animal so clear cut under law, but human embryos have no protection under current law? Legal follies such as this underscore our lack of seriousness and consistency when contemplating our children of tomorrow. My concern is that we are not teaching them why they should treat us kindly, much less giving them a good example.

Bioethics dilemmas and most political disputes may seem to be new problems, but they’re not. Every “new” problem is another facet of the potential to deny the existence of right and wrong or to infringe on the inalienable rights of our fellow humans. Knowledge of the basics can guide decisions and actions.

The Negative rights to Life, Liberty and Property are owned and endowed upon individuals; they are not the property of or gift of societies or governments. These exist in a necessary order; a hierarchy of importance and power to call on society for protection. The right not to be killed trumps the right not to be enslaved, which precedes the right not to have your property taken from you by force or fraud. If they can kill you, there are no limits on how much they can enslave you or take from you. We must be secure that others won’t take our property against our will, because earning and owning property is how we avoid enslavement to others and how we make plans and lay by the staples of life to support the lives of ourselves and our families, both immediately while we can earn, and later when we are unable to work.

Society and government must protect these “inalienable” rights of individuals, but only as far as to ensure equality of opportunity, not the equality of outcome. These are protections against the actions of others, not against words or thoughts. It is not protection or promotion of someone’s personal tastes and not the right to not be offended. We must be very, very careful when we tax and even more careful if we presume to force the actions of others.

Read the entire posting at www.TexasGOPVote.com.

 

 

7 Responses

  1. Juda says:

    Beautifully said. I always bring up the protection to eagle eggs fertilized or not. Is a bird more valuable than a human? Can a bird invent a cure for disease? Of course not but people want to pay more respect to anything but a baby in the womb.

    Thank you for being an active part of saving our “right”

  2. Paul V. Sheridan says:

    Little Beverly-Boop Nuckols… relating to your trash posts here:

    No one is interested in what you call “science.” You mean like CO2 causes “global warming”? Or HIV exists and is the “sole cause of AIDS” (hence more drug sales)? Next you’ll babble that doctors are scientists; like you presumably!? In case your little inbred brain is too bigoted to get it: Doctors and the entire medical industry does NOT prioriitze health; they prioritize medicine, in this case spelled ‘v a c c i n e’. Stay away from me and mine with you needles, UNDERSTOOD?

    • Bill Kneer says:

      Paul i see you are a little afraid of truth..But that’s ok, we all understand…Have a wonderful day…

      • Paul V. Sheridan says:

        Kneer: Trendy socialite cowards like you wouldn’t know the truth if it was fed to you intravenously. One obvious truth about wanna-bes like you and your ilk is that you make no direct counterpoint to my post, while ostensibly claiming that I have not. Are you familiar with the condition called schizophrenia? In a broad sense it applies to people, such as you, who talk aout of both sides of their mouths but without any connection to consciousness/self-lucidity. Understood?

        • Bill Kneer says:

          Thanks for you kind and thoughtful words i truly appreciate you.

          But in truth there is not point with arguing with the blind. Therefor for now i will go about my day and keep you in my prayers.

    • John Griffing says:

      Patriot Statesman encourages frank and honest discussion of the issues, but there is no need for ad hominem attacks here. If a commenter has a problem with an argument made by a writer, he or she is perfectly welcome to challenge the factual argument on factual grounds. Cute insults or rabid rants tend to undermine the conservative message for those who are on the fence, and will undoubtedly be reading Patriot Statesman articles. Thank you Mr. Price for your remarks. I am a fan.

  3. Bob Price says:

    Bill, isn’t it amazing who when people have no logical arguement to make, they resort to name calling and personal attacks. Dr. Nuckols is an amazing doctor and wonderful person. In addition to her MD, she also has a Master’s Degree in Bioethics. Maybe Paul can find some peace in his life somewhere. I pray for him.

Leave a Reply

Using Gravatars in the comments - get your own and be recognized!

XHTML: These are some of the tags you can use: <a href=""> <b> <blockquote> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>