Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Mike Bogus's avatar

Interesting take MDCB. The legal definition of self-preservation is keeping oneself from harm, or avoiding destruction or decay, very close to what a run of the mill dictionary states. However, legally speaking, the term always presupposes a real or existing danger. Without that distinction, logically, everything in the world and everyone in it is a potential threat to your existence. So what, would you say, is your hard limit to the individual's right to self-preservative actions?

Lorenz Gude's avatar

At your best, mate. Roe v Wade and the Second amendment - hell yeah - and brilliant because they really are connected in a way I, and I suspect many, never put together before. Not just a contrast between a blue and a red core issue, but aspects of the same core human issue. You cut right to the actual bottom line that undercuts it all - what a woman faced with a Sophie's choice finds she must do - and chooses self-preservation not knowing any better than any other human being in dire straights how it will prove out in the end. As an American living in Perth watching all this going down is like hearing the roar of the crowd at the Coliseum from a few blocks away knowing that, even if you can't see it, people are dying. Thank you Michael.

3 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?