Home abortion Strike the Root:: Individual Responsibility, Not Group Rights

Strike the Root:: Individual Responsibility, Not Group Rights

by Kelly Crawford

This timely article I quoted from simply and brilliantly explains the largest problem of society in respect to these “political” issues we’ve been discussing. Its primary focus is abortion, but the concept carries over to any issue.

Consider these thoughts about individual responsibility vs. individual rights:

“Libertarians should realize that there are no group rights. There are no men’s or women’s rights, no black or white rights or any other group rights. Abortion is based on the false collectivist assumption that there are group rights, specifically women’s rights in this case. Collectivist rights are tools of the state, and have been used to justify the state’s murder, theft, genocide, torture, and other atrocities down through the ages. Collectivist rights always emphasize the rights of the group over the individual, and absolve the group of individual responsibility–no wonder they are favorite tools of the state. There are only individuals and individual rights and responsibilities. Though all individuals are unique, there are no unique individual rights, especially ones that allow individuals to violate the rights of others.

The article discusses the misunderstanding of “rights”, particularly how it relates to abortion. It goes on to say:

“The whole pro-abortion property rights doctrine is actually quite frightening, and if taken to its logical conclusion, would allow all kinds of abhorrent behavior, and shows how rights can be confused with illegitimate acts. If applied consistently, and without exceptions, it would result in only real estate property owners having rights, and only when they were on their own real estate property. This would allow cannibalism, slavery, murder, and any other evil as a right, and would allow each person to be a law unto themselves on their property.”

Ironic, isn’t it, that the first black president, would be propagating such oppression as his ancestors were freed from:

“Abortion today is similar to the issue of slavery that was wrongly institutionalized and legalized by the Constitution at the founding of the US . Slavery was presented as a rights issue, with the rights of the property owners overriding the rights of slaves to be treated as human beings. Slaves were denied their basic human rights, with slave owners allowed to act irresponsibly toward slaves and even harm or kill them as they saw fit. Slavery was a disgrace that made a mockery of the Declaration of Independence, that all men are created equal, are endowed with inalienable rights, and was a blow of tyranny against freedom. Today abortion continues this reprehensible tradition of the weak being victimized by the strong, with the rule of the jungle replacing the rule of law.”

Is it that we no longer know how to think, or that we just don’t want to?

Strike the Root

You may also like


Mia January 24, 2009 - 9:43 am


Obama’s ancestors weren’t enslaved by American property owners. His father is Kenyan. He immigrated as an adult.

It’s a small point compared to what your overall message is, but I’m making it because I think you make some good points that are often obscured because of jarring inaccuracies.

It doesn’t lessen your message that Obama is not descended from enslaved Africans. It’s just unnecessarily misinformed. In the previous post it was the same thing with the inaccurate statement about no other animals engaging in homosexuality. Again, this statement was really secondary to your intent, but it’s just unnecessarily misinformed.

Keeping to factual statements doesn’t diminish your faith.

Word Warrior January 24, 2009 - 10:22 am


Thank you for the correction. Admittedly, I haven’t really paid attention to his ancestory, because his color/race doesn’t matter to me.

Maybe I used the term “ancestors” a bit too loosely; he is hailed as “our first black president” and is assumed to fight for their previous oppression, so the inference that “his ancestors were slaves” simply meant that “black people in history were slaves”, and I find it ironic that the issue of race is present, but no one is making the connection between the injustice of slavery and the injustice of abortion.

BTW, I didn’t purposely use unfactual statements to make a point 😉

Word Warrior January 24, 2009 - 10:26 am


Does his wife count? *smiles*

“Michelle Obama’s great-great-grandfather, Jim Robinson, was a slave in South Carolina until the Civil War.”

Word Warrior January 24, 2009 - 10:28 am

Also, Obama’s ancestors *owned* slaves, so the irony stil exists, though my facts may have been off.

Angela January 24, 2009 - 11:48 am


You make some excellent points in this article. I have never thought to compare abortion to slavery.

Abortion is rationalized and excused as a woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body. But the issue is not the woman’s body, but the life of the infant. Children are not property. They are blessings giving to us by God and should be treated as such.

And what people think of as “rights” are actually privelages. We are privelaged to live in a country where we can worship God. We are privelaged to be able to raise and school our children how we see fit. We are privelaged to have nice homes

Angela January 24, 2009 - 11:53 am

With privelage comes personal responsibility. We must be responsible to uphold the moral values this country was founded on.

Civilla January 24, 2009 - 11:57 am

This was a very, very good post. Children are not property.

Mia January 24, 2009 - 12:45 pm

Hi Kelly,
Yes, Michelle counts. 🙂 Good points, as usual!

tami January 24, 2009 - 9:23 pm

see my blog- i have an award for you!

Word Warrior January 24, 2009 - 9:58 pm


Which blog is it on? I can’t find it 🙂

Elizabeth January 24, 2009 - 10:44 pm

Kelly, it’s on this blog. It’s the picture of the toy.


Word Warrior January 24, 2009 - 11:46 pm

Hmmm…I don’t see a picture of a toy…there are three boxes above the “I love your blog” button that for some reason are not “opened”…I can tell something is supposed to be there, but they are not showing. Perhaps that is it.

Elizabeth January 25, 2009 - 12:18 am

It’s the picture in this blog post.
It’s also under the “I love your blog” button.


Bethany Hudson January 25, 2009 - 2:07 am

Hm…I don’t know. I greatly dislike the sort of rhetoric found in this article. The whole slippery slope argument usually just gets the accusing group riled up and the group getting accused to roll their eyes or to fight back without listening properly. I don’t find this sort of writing or speech to be effective in propogating dialogue or change; rather it seems to continue to entrench and divide groups with already formed opinions.

I would also be curious about the writer of the article. Is he or she a minority? Has he or she ever needed his or her rights defended when large numbers of people or various institutions were stripping him or her of those rights? Specific groups have needed certain “rights” through time and history to protect them from crimes specifically against their group. In the pro-life movement, we are advocating for the RIGHTS of the unborn to life OVER the purported right of women to terminate a pregnancy. We are still dealing with the rights of a singular group. Many of the poor and underrepresented worldwide need legal advocacy on their behalf because humanity is simply NOT taking care of them any other way. I don’t think this is communism; we’re not talking about everyone being equal, but everyone having the ability to survive. This is mercy–forced mercy, perhaps, if it can be had no other way. African Americans, among other minorities, have required certain rights in order to protect and enable them in our country’s history. While the PC-mania of these rights can sometimes get overblown, I don’t think we should be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I am staunchly pro-life, and I agree that personal responsibility needs to be a major part of the picture, not just legislation for various groups. I would also like to see the day when we could just have basic rights for all citizens and didn’t have to fight for the rights of certain groups who are being marginalized or in some other way degraded or victimized. But, unless you know what it’s like to experience the hopelessness and powerlessness of being marginalized, I don’t think I can take seriously a pointe-blank argument against this kind of “group rights” legislation.

Anyway, that’s just my two cents.


Word Warrior January 25, 2009 - 8:54 am

Elizabeth–finally! Thank you. When I pulled up the home page previously, nothing was showing–blank, and the lemonade stand icon was not clickable.

sheena January 26, 2009 - 3:59 am

great blog on an interesting article. I sent a link to the whole article to my libertarian friends.

Mrs. Taft January 26, 2009 - 5:16 am

Bethany: It might help you to know that this was written from a Libertarian’s point of view. They do not adhere to “collectivism” and trust that freedom and personal responsibility will dictate our actions to another. It’s another way of looking at it–instead of guaranteeing that a special group of people have rights (equal or special) they insist that everyone has the same basic rights, and our rights stop when they infringe on someone else’s. I’m mangling this philosophy horribly, but it’s not that they dont see how specific groups of people were targeted–rather, they see the cause, effect, and cure of it in a different light. I personally like the language–everyone is unique and special and free, but not to the point where they restrict the freedom of anyone else regardless of what they are.

Lori January 26, 2009 - 12:54 pm

Actually, children are property, to a certain extent. That’s why kidnapping is both sin and criminal. The question is just what rights should they have. And worshipping God is both a right and a duty.

Even if someone thinks children are not property, that won’t stop the government from disagreeing with you. You see, things like homeschooling weren’t always perceived as parental rights. State governments have, in the past, taken custody of children claiming, essentially, “eminent domain”. Homeschooling is illegal in some European countries such as Germany and Austria. Now, we know that parents are commanded to teach our children God’s laws and precepts all day, therefore, it is our God-ordained right as well as duty, in any country. The fact that it is not a civil liberty in some countries is just an example of state (“state” being an abbreviated and accurate way to refer to civil gov’t) claiming the children as its property.

Now, does this mean that parents may do whatever they like with their children? No, because those children do have God given rights. Not just the right to life, but many more. For example, they are commanded by God to chastity, therefore they have a right to chastity, and a parent may not sell their child into prostitution for any reason. An extreme example, yet a common enough occurrence.

I believe that anything that God commands us to do is a right, as well as duty, not just a priviledge. Anything God gives us permission to do is a right, not just priviledge. Whether it is legal or not just shows where our rights are being violated. I’m not saying that these things are not priviledges, because it is most certainly a priviledge to be invited into the holiest of presences, but it is also a right. I suppose Angela was trying to say that not all priviledges are rights. If so, then I certainly agree. But some things are most certainly rights, whether or not those rights are legally observed.

Germany – “ruled that two Baptist couples lose their parental authority over their own children in educational matters. The court said it was interfering “in order to protect the children from further harm.” It stated that the parents had shown “a stubborn contempt both for the state’s educational duty as well as the right of their children to develop their personalities by attending school.” “


New Jersey – “

HOLLAND TOWNSHIP, N.J. – Three New Jersey siblings whose names have Nazi connotations have been placed in the custody of the state, police said Wednesday.”


(To be clear, I am as appalled that parents would name a child Adolf Hitler as anyone, but it is their right. This is not a breach of any crime, and does not warrant of state removal of children.)

Lori January 26, 2009 - 1:00 pm

Beg pardon. Last comment meant to read “…not a breach of any law…”

Angela January 26, 2009 - 10:02 pm


Let me try to clarify my statements. I completely agree that we have God given rights. And yes, at the founding of our country, our government gave us certain Constitutional rights which I still believe these are privelages. Look at other countries and their lack thereof. However, people have taken these rights and have twisted them to fit what ever their selfish desires require at any given moment.

In reference to my statement that children are not property, that was directly related the comment comparing abortion to slavery.

Lori January 27, 2009 - 8:57 am

Angela – Thank you for clarifying. I understand you.

I would like to reiterate that rights to not hinge on what a civil body gives, whether it be the constitution or Magna Carta or whatever. Our rights come from God. The constitution is our current legal touchstone, that’s all. Some rights are upheld, some are legally violated. (having or brewing alchohol used to be “unconstitional” remember? Even if you don’t agree with imbibing, it is a God-given right) So, yes, we don’t have a right to a nice house, but we do have a right to privacy within that house (and many other places).

I understand what you were reffering to regarding slavery. But I have been hearing that line “children are not property” more frequently lately, and believe that it is very destructive to family rights. I made the points I made in hopes of drawing others’ attention to the embedded, wrongful, assertion. Whatever the intent, it’s a dangerous catchphrase.

I’m being a stickler here. I can see this. But as we know, a whole country can sell out and ride off into the sunset on unsubstantiated claims and platitudeds: a nice phrase.

I fear the phrase “children are not property” becoming such a widespread catchphrase that it changes laws, and overrides my rights to my own children. To discipline them, educated them, religiously train them, as the Bible mandates.

Lori January 27, 2009 - 9:41 am

This not directed at anyone here, but just so you know what some people are thinking about our christian children (pay special attention to the first and last sentances):

“But in our culture, a very strong presumption in favor of the parents’ rights to control their child’s upbringing has developed. It is so strong, that we let them teach the children anything they want, take them anywhere they want, and in effect indoctrinate them in any way they see fit. The parents’ treatment of the child has to reach extremes before we will intervene. If there is outright physical, sexual, or emotional abuse, we legally intervene.

But consider educational child abuse…Every time a parent passes some of that (Lori’s note – religion, superstition) to a child, the child has lost the opportunity to find out the truth, she’s less equipped to deal with the real world as we know it, and her life will be filled with more ignorance, fear, and superstition. And she goes on to propagate those ideas, miring all of us in the past.

When parents impart a religious worldview …they do a grievous harm to that child”

Matt McCormick
Professor, Sacramento, CA


Word Warrior January 27, 2009 - 10:08 am



authenticallyme January 28, 2009 - 3:20 pm

Sometimes I think some of these professors and studies, or German lawmakers…..think that religion is forced on a child. To an extent, they are correct. A young or sometimes even teenage child often has no rights or say in what they want to beleive, or how they want to pratice it….for instance, if a parent makes their child attend catechism, the child must. If a parent makes their child join the Klu Klux Klan, they must. If a parent demands the child go to church and sunday schhool and youth group weekly, the child must. Most times children wont vehemently disagree with these practices; it is expected of them and they see their parents do it, so they follow in their footsteps. Perhaps this is what is so frightening to the child counselors, professors, and physchiatrists.

Eventually, the childs right to choose makes its debue. The may start exhibiting these characteristics as a teen….or young adult. They question. They wonder. And eventually they take on some sort of ‘owned’ faith. it becomes theirs, all theirs, and they realize that as a conscious older child or adult, this is what *they* want. If it happens to mimic the parents doctrine, so be it. If it doesnt, the child makes his or her choice.

My point is that spiritual education given to a child does not hold the power to not present CHOICE to that child. The day will arrive when the childs lifelong teachings either settle in and find a permanent home, or possibly the child will need to restructure, and go through a process to settle into their owned belief system. I mean, most kids dont believe and resign to every last detail of doctrine their parents subscribe to….somewhere along the line, the child finds their own religion, all their own.

The only time IMO this ddiffers is when the religion is taught and the parents are hypocritical, abusive, or perfection-aholics—-we see this often in adults who were forced into a religion that the very pushers of it, abused.

authenticallyme January 28, 2009 - 3:28 pm

To add-either way, taking away the right to homeschool because a spiritual religion is imparted-is something I do not agree with.

I wonder what the non-religion practicing parents who desire to homeschool in Germany say about that law…………hahahaha. Kinda comical….

Lori January 28, 2009 - 6:47 pm

German authorities have relied on Nazi-era legislation that outlawed home education to prevent parents from keeping their children out of the public school system for religious or social convictions. The law forbade home education in order to prevent “the emergence of parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions.”


Education can be seen as methodical socialization of the young generation (Durkheim 1956). Education must assure, among the citizens a sufficient community of ideas and sentiments, without which any society is impossible (Ibid). Sufficient community is for Durkheim solidarity and the meaning of social integration. Social integration includes systems of integration, but also reciprocity of practices and communication between either actors or collectives (Giddens 1988).
Home education is increasing in Norway and other modern countries (Beck 2006). If school attendance is considered important to social integration, non-attendance due to home education can be viewed as a threat to integration…

The ruling expresses concern about the development of parallel communities comprising distinct ethnic groups and immigrants in European countries. To avoid such social fragmentation, the Human Rights Court put the child’s right to an education above parental rights.


White Humanist Europeans fear the subcultures rising up from the religious, and ESPECIALLY the immigrant religious, who keep having babies that will outvote them in 18 years or so.

Eurocentric snobbery, Eurocentric Liberalism. (Not all Europeans fit this bill, but it’s majority)

Lori January 28, 2009 - 6:57 pm

By the way, did you catch that “logic” in the Norwegian report?

“The ruling expresses concern about the development of parallel communities comprising distinct ethnic groups and immigrants in European countries. To avoid such social fragmentation, the Human Rights Court put the child’s right to an education above parental rights.”


So, white Humanist, non-breeding Europeans fear the “social fragmentation” (read: seriously conflicting, numerically competative voting blocks) of their culture (the group), therefore put “the child’s right to an education above parental rights.”

No, not the “child’s right”, the (currently) dominant European group’s right. They switch from talking about the group/society to the child, almost in the same breath. Sly!

Word Warrior January 28, 2009 - 7:00 pm


Thank you for that research…precisely why I don’t shy away from saying the things I say about government education being a vehicle for social reform.

All us comfortable Americans sit back in apathy and say “hogwash”…we’re not too far. This stuff happens “slyly” as you said…so slyly that our undereducated masses don’t even get it.

Civilla January 30, 2009 - 4:38 pm

I don’t think the school system in our country is battling for social reform any more. They have lost that battle. Now, they are just battling to survive and keep the students from literally killing each other and themselves. We’re in trouble, folks.

We used to live in Germany. There is a high degree of conformity in that country. No individuality is encouraged at all. I can see why they would try to prevent homeschooling. It does not fit the norm. And, it is now a very godless country. We’re not far behind.

We used to live in England, and you can homeschool there, but it is monitored. There is much more freedom for people to be individuals there than in Germany.


Leave a Comment

Facebook Twitter Youtube Instagram

Post Category

motherhood/family/parenting Uncategorized christian living homeschooling pregnancy/birth control marriage frugal living/saving money large families public school abortion feminism dating/courtship church/children's ministry entrepreneur pictures

Author's Picks

Why We Should Encourage Our Kids to Marry Young 220 comments Two Children are a Heritage From the Lord (After That, You Should Know... 173 comments Population Control Through Tetanus Vaccine 127 comments

Latest posts

The Power of Gathering Around the Table: Beyond Hospitality 0 comment Weddings, Getting Older, Navigating a Large Family & God’s Goodness 33 comments Help My Friends Find Their Child Through Adoption 0 comment The Shocking Truth About Education 2 comments

Copyright ©2023 Generationcedar. All Right Reserved. Designed and Developed by Duke