Tuesday, February 07, 2006

Abortion is a Spear Aimed at Liberty

Before the Civil War Abraham Lincoln said the nation could not survive half-slave and half-free. Nor can it survive with some classes of people exercising arbitrary life and death power over other classes of people.

When Roe v Wade was decided 33 years ago people could honorably argue that a fetus was just a "blob of tissue." They were wrong, but who could know with certainty? Advances in medical science have demolished that argument for most of the term of pregnancy. Pro-lifers always believed that when medical science proved what faith already knew, people would step back from the abyss. But it was not to be. Abortion advocates just shifted ground, moving away from the 'blob of tissue' argument to a 'right to choose' argument. At that moment, though few understood it, the debate transmogrified from how we treat the unborn into one over whether freedom has any future in America.

But first a brief discourse on the concept of rights. As the founders understood them, rights were something that inhered to each person under natural law. A right was something that preceded the existence of the state. In fact, the very legitimacy of a state was determined by whether or not it acknowledged and defended human rights. People had the obligation to revolt against any state which did not acknowledge and protect universal human rights. This is why the founders' concept of natural law is so critical: a right could neither be created nor granted by the state, for what the state could legitimately grant it could legitimately revoke. The only question involved in whether one could properly lay claim to a right was based on humanity. It is why the slavery issue was bound to reach a crisis point: if, in America, an arbitrary definition of who was human and who was not could predominate, the concept of rights was meaningless and the American experiment in liberty a sham.

The history of American slavery from the founding through the Civil War is a history of abolitionists positing the humanity of the enslaved and pro-slavery elements desparately trying to change the subject. Even the sloganeering of the time is eerily similar to that of the abortion issue. Pore over the transcripts of Senate debates and you will be stunned at how frequently Southern Senators taunted their Northern counterparts by saying some variation of, "If you're against slavery, don't own one."

Rich Miller's question last week of whether people who oppose abortion 'rights' were out of the mainstream was truly ironic. The founders recognized that public opinion could be a fickle thing. Many attempts at democracy had floundered because they had degenerated into a "tyranny of the majority" that was more brutally repressive than overt autocracies. The Bill of Rights was to be a bulwark against that - a guarantee that regardless of what the majority (the mainstream) thought at a given moment, certain rights were beyond their power of interference.

When, in the late 80s, we reached the moment of tilt away from the 'blob of tissue' argument to the 'woman's right to choose' argument we entered into a slow-moving crisis of freedom, itself, without realizing it. At that moment we acknowledged that we overtly had decided that one class of people would have life and death power over another class of innocent people. Having accepted that principle, we damaged the concept of rights and elevated the very old and brutal notion that that autonomy belongs to those with sufficient power to impose their will on others. Having revoked the rights of life and liberty from one innocent class of people, what philosophical barrier is there to revoking it from others? There is nothing but inertia holding us back, and inertia fades over time. Some of those in the powerful class of people who boldly proclaim their 'right' to exercise life and death power over certain innocents may one day find themselves in a different, targeted class as we 'compassionately' expand the ranks of those whose innocent lives may be terminated by the fiat of a third party. When I advocate for a return to our pro-life roots and a rennaissance of the authentic concept of human rights, I advocate for them as well as for unborn children.

11 comments:

Anonymous,  9:36 AM  

It's all about viability. A slave removed from his owner can survive on his own just fine. You figure out how to do that for the unborn and I'll support laws forbidding abortion.

No reason to kill something that can survive on its own even if you don't want it.

-Gish

Anonymous,  9:46 AM  

Gish,

If its about viability, then small children, mental disabled, poor uneducated umemployed ethnic minorities, and the elderly all of whom are "non-viable" on there own we should be able to "abort".

Anonymous,  10:42 AM  

I don't think it's about Liberty, but rather about Life, which is equally as important as Liberty.

The issue of liberty is that states should have the liberty to make their own laws on abortion. Some would have it the same as now, some would have only rape and life of mother exceptions, and some might have first trimester or viability limits. This is a topic for legislators.

Anonymous,  10:50 AM  

Face it, abortion will elicit these passions as long as it is a national issue. The obscenity of Roe v. Wade was not in legalizing abortion (it already was legal in some states), but that in forbidding states to regulate it the USSC nationalized the issue.

I am pro-life, but I resent anyone who doesn't live near me (say, in my state) forcing laws down my throat. I don't care if they're pro-life abolitionists from Massachusetts, they can go jump off a bridge as far as I'm concerned. Now, if the people of Illinois, my neighbors, want to restrict abortion, I can handle that, and would support the effort.

Charlie, quoting Abe to support the pro-life position isn't helpful. Whereas slavery was abolished peacefully in all but two countries (the US and Haiti), Abe fumbled the ball and led us into a war that killed 620,000 fellow Americans.

How much better off would we be today if the slavery issue had been settled peacefully? Those who think we are on the road to a bloody confrontation over abortion should stop and ask the same question about the abortion issue.

Anonymous,  12:30 PM  

You realize it was the Southern States that seceded right? They didn't consider themselves fellow Americans when they were killed. They were traitors.

Anonymous,  12:31 PM  

Anon 9:46 - a severely handicapped child or a terminally ill elderly person can be kept alive with machines.

An embryo in the pre-fetal stage is fragile even with good pre-natal care.

Apples:Oranges.

Anonymous,  12:41 PM  

Anon 9:46 am -

Yes you can 'abort' all the listed peoples in your response. If you are my child, I can freely dump you off at birth in any hospital etc. If you are elderly, I am not required to feed and house you. If you are mentally or physically disabled, I can turn you over to the state for care. If you are a woman with an unwanted, unborn child, you are forced to house, feed and keep your unborn child unless you choose to abort it.

I can abort all the others. They are 'viable'. They can be handed off to someone else to care for. Figure out how to do that with the unborn and I would support laws to make abortion illegal.

-Gish

Charlie Johnston 3:59 PM  

Certainly, the unborn child is in a unique situation of dependence on his mother. That does not change my point...we are all in positions of dependence at one time or another. If, say, you cannot find a caregiver for a sick relative, an elderly parent, or a young child, would that give license to kill? By that standard all of us are vulnerable at some time or another...it would just take another discovery of a new penumbra to make it the law of the land. You may say it WOULD not happen, but once the standard is dependence you no longer have an objective standard, but open the matter up to debate as to what level of dependence one can sink to before they can be disposed of. The only reliable standard is humanity.

Anon 10:50, As for the notion that Lincoln blundered us into war, good heavens, you will find precious few historians who would adopt that interpretation. Slavery had ebbed and waned as a divisive, inflammatory issue from the founding. One of the unique characteristics of American slavery was that an entire region's economy was dependent on slave labor. In quieter times, officials were content to believe slavery was on the course of "ultimate extinction." Almost all were willing to leave it alone and hope for the best so long as it was confined to the southern states where it already existed. But the slave power could not leave well enough alone. In 1854 Congress passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which would allow voters in new territories to decide whether or not they would be slave or free. Stephen Douglas was its great advocate, calling it "Popular Sovereignty" in which the people, themselves would decide. Problem is, as abolitionist pointed out, this ignored the point of whether black people were human or not. And it also violated the longstanding tacit agreement that slavery would, at least, not be allowed to spread beyond its bounds.

The situation was further inflamed in 1857 when the Supreme Court ruled that no black person, free or slave, could ever be a citizen of the United States. That had many inflammatory implications, but for the sake of brevity I'll only mention one: northern whites who sheltered a slave who had escaped from the south were obligated to return the slave or, themselves, be in violation of the law. The Supreme Court robbed northerners of their right to conscience.

The 1860 election was between Lincoln and the author and proponent of Popular Sovereignty; Stephen Douglas. By this time, the south was not content with the status quo. They threatened that unless the nation voted to allow the expansion of slavery (by electing Dougalss) they would secede. Upon Lincoln's election - and before his inaugural - secession began.

You may argue that the Union was not worth saving. You would be wrong, but you could argue the point. But if you believe the Union was worth saving, Lincoln had no choice but war - or allowing the whole nation to become a slave nation. Lincoln said it best in his Second Inaugural: "...Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would MAKE war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would ACCEPT war rather than let it perish, and the war came."

With the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854, though the nation did not yet realize it, war ceased to be a matter of 'if' and became a question of 'when.' The only thing that could have stopped it would have been for the south to drop their insistence upon the expansion of slavery to new territories.

Anonymous,  9:04 AM  

Charlie, the point is that nationalizing the issue makes it impossible to escape a bad court ruling unless you leave the country. If the question were decided state to state, as federalism was designed to allow, then citizens could work to change laws in their state. If they are unsuccessful, relief is but a stateline away. This business about me, a pro-lifer in Illinois, wanting to enact a pro-life law applicable in Massachusetts makes about as much sense as a Massachusetts gun-control nut wanting to impose that viewpoint by law on Illinois. That's not the way the framers designed the constitution to work.

Re: Lincoln, I encourage you to read up on the subject. When slavery is abolished peacefully in all but two countries, someone has to ask, Why didn't it happen here? Lincoln made many serious constitutional, diplomatic and military blunders. Consider that Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas initially did not secede with the deep south; they did so in response to Lincoln's unconstitutional call-up (an Article II congressional power) of the militia. The result of this blunder was that Robert E. Lee turned down command of the Union Army to defend his native Virginia. This is just one of many grevious errors. Nonetheless, history is written by the victors, and today the murdered Lincoln is deified.

Charlie, many other errors regarding Dred Scott, the Fugitive Slave Act, etc. are presented above, but my point is that by nationalizing an issue, whether it be slavery or abortion, contrary to the designer's (of the Constitution of 1787) intent, greatly enhances the chance of a bloodbath-not a very pro-life outcome.

Charlie Johnston 1:44 PM  

Lincoln and the Civil War is a subject I am rather well-read on. My note that an entire region's economy was based on the availability of slave labor was a clue to why this nation ended up going to war - it was not a superfluous add-on, but a structural issue. Federalism was designed to give state's great leeway - but the founder's considered the defense of liberty to be a national issue - and something no state was allowed to deny.

I do appreciate your insight into the fact that Roe v Wade nationalized the issue, though. I have been telling friends in the pro-life movement for a while that Roe v Wade might well turn out to be a fatal error on the part of the left: given the way our society was moving, abortions were bound to increase dramatically. Had they left well enough alone, we in the pro-life movement would have been confronted with a fifty-headed monster. By nationalizing, they did do us the favor that when we finally do kill the monster, we only have to do it once.

Anonymous,  3:29 PM  

Perhaps this reveals a fissure in the pro-life movement, but I am one who believes that killing the monster one time at the national level, whether by federal legislation (except for removing Article III Court jurisdiction over abortion cases), constitutional amendment, or court opinion outlawing abortion will perpetuate the damage done by Roe v. Wade.

Abortion was a state issue prior to 1973; some states practically outlawed it and some were rather liberal in allowing it. (Remember, even the venerated Ronald Reagan, as governor of California, signed what was considered a very liberal state abortion law.) Roe v. Wade arose out of Texas, on the other end of the abortion spectrum.

This is precisely as the framers envisioned; and where, I believe, conservatives need to aim. That is, reverse Roe v. Wade by judicial opinion, announce no federal jurisdiction over abortion regulation, and send the issue back to each state- status quo 1972. As conservatives, this is what we owe our forefathers.

We are already experiencing the alternative route- a national (some would say tyrannical) fiat on an issue the framers considered a state issue. If we perpetuate it in the name of "life", what other issue will the left grab, nationalize, and use to put us under yoke?

  © Blogger template The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP