What Freedom Means To Me.

Freedom apparently is such a subjective topic, one that it seems many have some confusion over. So, as a public service and maybe so that we can come together on many issues I am going to give you what freedom means to whatukno.

What Freedom Means To Me...

Is the freedom to say what I want when I want and where I want to say it. But with that freedom comes the opportunity to be rebutted, rebuked, and redressed by someone with an opposing viewpoint. Also, with that freedom, comes the responsibility to the speech that I say, while I may be free to lie, I must also take responsibility if that lie should happen to injure someone else.

Is the freedom to be armed if I should so choose to be. But with that freedom comes the responsibility of responsible arms ownership, the mental maturity to take that right and not abuse it. The freedom to be armed does not mean that I must become a Thomas Jefferson fapping gun nut, shouting “they can take my gun out of my cold dead hand!” as I ejaculate!
(Note to readers, this isn’t a gun control thread, put away the gun oil.)

Is the freedom if I choose to, marry whom I want, regardless of their gender. I believe that love should not be legislated. Marriage is no more sacred than a car purchase. Especially given the rate of divorce in this nation. If you have found the love of your life, and want to spend the rest of your life with that person, I wish you all the happiness in the world. Wouldn’t you want someone else to have that same opportunity, regardless of whom they love?
(Yes I realize the other person has to love you too, don’t be an ass.)

Is the freedom to go where I want when I want. But that does not mean I don’t have rules I should follow.

Is the freedom to put whatever I want in my body. If I want to put something in my body that I know is bad for me, who is anyone else to tell me I can’t? It’s my body, I should be able to do with it what I want.

Is the freedom to get rid of something out of my body that I don’t want in there. Well, in my case, being a male, it’s not much of an issue, but to women it can be. When that something is an unwanted fetus. I think that a woman should have the right to choose whether or not to have a baby. Now I understand that abortion is a terrible thing, I thoroughly researched it for a debate here before, and I understand what late term abortion entails. If I was a woman I couldn’t agree to an abortion unless I was in danger or raped or something, but my choice might not be someone else's choice and I don’t think I should have the power to tell someone else whether or not they have to have a baby.

So, that’s all I can think of right off the top of my head. Any questions?

Freedom means different things to different people.

In the U.S, freedom can mean the right for a woman to seek an abortion.
Just saying..........in China, freedom might mean to some women, the right to have a second child without being forced to have an abortion.

Meanwhile, your ideas of freedom seem to be along the same lines as my ideas of freedom.

Freedom to me means I can do what I want when I want (within reason)

yet it seems like our freedom is slowly but surely being taken away here in the good old US of A.

reply to post by CheapShotArtist


I see:



More or Less?

I can see it, but I am not a fan of anarchy either. Some things like murder, rape, slavery, stealing. I just can't get behind. For some reason, I think that's wrong, call me kooky, but that's the way I see it.



[edit on 8/5/2010 by whatukno]

Originally posted by kyred
Freedom means different things to different people.

In the U.S, freedom can mean the right for a woman to seek an abortion.
Just saying..........in China, freedom might mean to some women, the right to have a second child without being forced to have an abortion.

Meanwhile, your ideas of freedom seem to be along the same lines as my ideas of freedom.

At least China is aware that there is a population problem

reply to post by Mythic Chris

At least China is aware that there is a population problem

But still, shouldn't it be up to the parents? Not the government? Sure, the government can try and persuade people from not having more kids, but I don't think it's the government's right to force people to not have kids.

reply to post by whatukno


The only point I disagree with is that I think marriage is a pretty sacred thing. That's not to say people shouldn't be able to marry whoever they damn well please, just that I think marriage is a little more sacred than buying a car (What can I say? I probably listen to The Cure a little too much ). That aside, good post.


TheAssoc.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by TheAssociate]

reply to post by TheAssociate


Not really, they pretty much are the same...

* Number of marriages: 2,162,000
* Marriage rate: 7.1 per 1,000 total population
* Divorce rate: 3.5 per 1,000 population (44 reporting States and D.C.)

Source: www.cdc.gov...

Among the findings in this report: unmarried cohabitations overall are less
stable than marriages. The probability of a first marriage ending in
separation or divorce within 5 years is 20 percent, but the probability of
a premarital cohabitation breaking up within 5 years is 49 percent. After
10 years, the probability of a first marriage ending is 33 percent,
compared with 62 percent for cohabitations.

Source: www.divorcereform.org...

Polk said the median age of cars on U.S. roads was 9.2 years in 2007. That ties the previous year's record high. In 2007, 41.3 percent of all cars were 11 years or older, compared with 40.9 percent the year before.

Source: www.msnbc.msn.com...

So, you are more likely to keep your car than your spouse.

reply to post by whatukno


Well, to be fair - I said within reason

reply to post by Mythic Chris


Yep, major good point there!

Isn't that what freedom is all about? Some sort of balance between the individual and the society?

I think so. Just haven't sorted it all out, cuz, well, different situations require different actions.

Oh, did that seem namby pamby?

reply to post by whatukno


Wow. lol I guess I should have traded in my wife a couple of cycles ago.



Or SHE should have traded up from me quite a bit ago.

Statistics, however, don't seem to apply to me and my dear wife.

I guess.

We cohabitated for a few years and then got married. We are still happily married. Years and years later, lol. At least considering the many other folks we know.

Anyway, back to freedom.

I would have liked to have a dozen children, for some odd reason I can't remember. If I could have supported them financially, maybe I might have. I didn't need a government body telling me I couldn't do this. I DID have my wife telling me this was not a good idea. And I was somewhat wise enough to realize I couldn't financially support that many children.

But if I could have afforded it, who else, besides my wife, should tell me not to do this? One of my children could have been a "messiah", or a genius who could have solved all the problems of the world.

Dang it! we had the first three. I just know the 11th or 12th would be the
"saviour".

reply to post by kyred


I completely understand, if you find a good mate, hang on, and if you can have 12 kids, and your wife doesn't murder you in your sleep, go for it.

No one should tell you not to.

The same with if you don't want a baby. It shouldn't be forced on a person either.

Well said Whatukno. I would also add that freedom means that we have elections every so often to choose representatives for our Congress and State legislatures. These elections should be transparent (no electronic voting machines without open source coding) preferably using the old school lever tabulators that cannot be tampered with.
Freedom also means being able to create and keep wealth without excessive taxation or government interference. If I should start a business that means I have a responsibility to pay my workers a decent wage and ensure their safety while on the job.
I appreciate that you put the word responsibility along with each freedom. I couldn't agree more that it should be part and parcel of every right we exercise.

I never knew Jefferson to be a gun nut though........I thought he collected books.

Star and flag for a good reminder on public ethics.

I recently found my own position on abortion, arriving at a similar thought to yours; that the fetus is a part of the mother's body. Until it is born it remains a part of the mother and is not a separate being.
I still think 3rd trimester abortions should only be done in cases of medical emergency, rape and incest.



[edit on 5-8-2010 by Asktheanimals]

reply to post by Asktheanimals


Thanks.

Jefferson himself really wasn't a gun nut, it's the Jefferson worshipers that are. I am of the opinion that if gun control legislation comes up and your only argument is quoting Charleston Heston, you might not be responsible enough to own a gun.

I agree with what you said about elections, worker safety and pay. Good to see.

I personally think that abortion is one of the hardest moral dilemmas to ever have to deal with. When my then wife became pregnant, she asked me what I wanted to do. I personally wanted her to have the child, but I didn't tell her, I said that it was her decision and that I would support her in her decision whatever it was. Her decision was to have the child and we were blessed with a wonderful baby boy. Had she decided not to have the child I would have supported her decision.

I still think 3rd trimester abortions should only be done in cases of medical emergency, rape and incest.

I completely agree with you late term abortion as well. Once the fetus is viable I have a harder time deciding that it's not a life.



[edit on 8/5/2010 by whatukno]

reply to post by whatukno


Well said, sir. After reading that, it's hard to understand why we dont see eye to eye more often, at least from my point of view.

The only thing I cannot agree with you on, is the topic of abortion. In my opinion, from the moment seed meets egg, a human life is taking shape. I believe a person is more than the sum of their parts. I didnt always think this way though.
This is going to sound quasi-mystical, if not down right absurd, but this was my experience:

The day before my wife and I found out she was pregnant, and the reason she took the home test in the first place, was because the night previous my son came to me in a dream, told me it was going to be nice to meet me, and that "Oh, and my name is Joshua."

Ten months hence now, and we have a beautiful lil man, one month old. Named him Joshua.

To add my two cents, to me freedom = liberty. Rights come part and parcel with responsibilities. There are two basic tenets of liberty. 1. That you may do, say, and think whatever you wish to, so long as you do no harm to another person, nor their property.
2. That you may never impose your will on another person not under your direct care, i.e., a dependent. You may attempt to persuade, or contract with another person to do anything though, so long as doing so does not violate number 1. As for children, I believe not so much in the "it takes a village" ideal, but that it is all adults responsibility, the parents primarily, to ensure that a child becomes a strong adult. If the child is able to think freely, and consistently make good judgments on their own, then that person is no longer a child regardless of age.

reply to post by blood0fheroes

Well said, sir. After reading that, it's hard to understand why we dont see eye to eye more often, at least from my point of view.

Probably because my beliefs aren't static, they depend on the situation. While my general beliefs are listed above, they may be influenced by a number of variables that lead me to a different conclusion.

On the abortion issue, see, that's a difficult one, and that is why I am pro choice, because it's not my choice whether or not you should have a child.

You believe that life begins at conception, and your son Joshua is a product of that belief. I hope he is happy, and healthy. It's a personal choice, and not one that the state should be able to make. The state should neither force you to give up your child, nor force you to have a child that is unwanted.

Say for example, in your dream, Joshua came to you and said, "Hi, my name will be Joshua, and I will disembowel the both of you while you sleep and feed on your entrails." Would you be inclined to bring that child to term based on that dream?

Personally, I think you would dismiss the dream as fear, and bring the child to term anyway, thinking that it's an innocent life that deserves the chance.

To me, it's a choice, and really, it's not even my choice, it's the mothers choice. Because until the Alienesque point of birth (cmon, whoever says that is beautiful has something seriously wrong with them), that child is not in my care.

reply to post by whatukno

Probably because my beliefs aren't static, they depend on the situation. While my general beliefs are listed above, they may be influenced by a number of variables that lead me to a different conclusion.

Actually I hold something akin to this myself, though maybe not quite exactly. I believe that right and wrong are matters of public opinion. Good and evil, however, are concrete.

It's a personal choice, and not one that the state should be able to make. The state should neither force you to give up your child, nor force you to have a child that is unwanted.

Definitely in agreement. The government on no level has any place dictating morality, and yes even had I had a dream such as you depicted we would have brought him to term. As for beliefs I hold one of balance, and to such and end that all man from mother Theresa to Charlie Manson have inside them an equal capacity for good and evil. Though lets face it, if he was "Stewie" waiting to happen I sincerely doubt he'd come out and say it.

As for choice I do not see it that way, and I think this is where we must agree to disagree. Like I said before, rights come with responsibilities. A woman has a right to have intercourse. If she becomes pregnant she then has a responsibility to the child. Where you say the child is a part of the mother, and not separate - that works both ways.
I say the mother is equally a part of the child. What is detrimental to one, is so to both. The difference is that only one is capable of action.

The only exception to this, I would say, is when the pregnancy puts the mothers life at risk in which case there are already laws in place for such a situation; specifically self defense. She then must make the choice to risk loosing her own life, or take that of her child.

(cmon, whoever says that is beautiful has something seriously wrong with them)

Fortunately I was able to make it home for the birth and can definitely understand the sentiment. However I think the reason people say it's beautiful, having now experienced it, is both simple and very complex at the same time. Call it a chemical reaction in the brain or whatever you please...It's impossible to explain with words how you can love someone so completely, without hesitation.

*sings*
"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

reply to post by whatukno


Nah, I was talking about "sacred" in a personal sense. If I ever get married, I will consider it a sacred bond, to me, personally. What others consider it is their business. Looking back, I coulda been more clear in my previous post, sorry for the confusion.


TheAssoc.

reply to post by TheAssociate


I understand your point. Marriage should be a sacred bond. Having been through it, I have to say, my next sacred bond is going to be with a Jet Black 67 Chevy Impala 4 door. Least that sacred bond won't cheat on me. The fact is, marriage is not only a sacred bond, but has also become a contractual obligation.



[edit on 8/5/2010 by whatukno]