05/07/2004 Entry: ""
Posted by Maynard @ 02:31 PM MST
Why I vote the way I do - Abortion
Abortion is the definitive divisive issue in America today. There is no issue that distinguishes between two voters more clearly, nor is there is an issue that appears more difficult to resolve. But there is also no easier decision to make than which side to choose in the abortion debate, when the issue is examined from a reasoned, fact-based perspective.
The fundamental disagreement in abortion, as I see it, is that pro-choice advocates demand freedom for their bodies, while pro-life advocates demand protection for the bodies of the unborn. One side treats the unborn as a separate entity while the other treats it as part of their own body. Science can clearly delineate between the two based on a DNA sample. Given two cells, one from the mother and one from the unborn, a DNA test can clearly distinguish mother from child. There is no question that the unborn is a separate entity.
Given that, I find the position of the pro-choice advocates untenable. I cannot dispute the fact that they can do to their bodies whatever they wish, however unwise a given action may be. However, since the issue at hand is the option to do harm to another human being, I must, to keep a clear conscience, favor the protection of the unborn. Every American citizen would (or should) advocate that people have a right to life, both individually and collectively, so how can a pro-choice advocate support a right to life that depends on the will of another? Some might try and draw a moral equivalence between the claim of a pregnant woman to an abortion and the claim of a governor to execute a convicted murderer, but the equivalence is false. Our government authorizes the denial of rights under due process; in the case of a murderer, the right to life is denied based on a trial by jury and appeals through the courts. In the case of an aborted child, the right to life is denied based on the arbitrary decision of another without the performance of a crime. What an unusually un-American position to take, given the Revolution was fought against the exercise of arbitrary rule.
The question of Constitutional permission of abortion is thick and difficult. Constitutional law, in and of itself, has accounted for numerous legal degrees being conferred, and is a broader topic of scholarship than I care to undertake. However, one principle of Constitutional law is clear: where the Constitution is silent, no presumption should be made, either for a position or against it. Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution because the Founding Fathers did not foresee a country in which the women would voluntarily elect to execute their unborn children. They did, however, rightly understand that the rights of individuals were to be secured by government with their consent. In the absence of consent, such as that which would be given by an unborn, a presumption must be made to favor the basic rights of all people, including the right to life.
Tyranny can be defined as a person seeking to impose their own will on another without the second's consent. When a pregnant mother seeks to impose her will to no longer bear a child against the unborn, this is a most cruel and unusual tyranny against the helpless and weak. Such is the state of affairs created by the arbitrary and capricious decision written by Justice Blackmun of the Supreme Court in 1973.
Citing the due process clause of the Fourteenth Constitutional Amendment, he and his concurring brethren on the Supreme Court claimed that the State, in preventing the arbitrary abortion of an unborn, was in fact denying the mother her own right to liberty. That is, he and those concurring made the logical fallacy of presuming the restraint of one person in imposing her will on another was the restraint of that person without cause. They refused to recognize the "other interests involved" (to quote the decision) but claimed the Texas law did the same. It is a fallacious and foolish argument, one that mocks the Constitution and everything our government is founded upon.
I refuse to vote for any candidate that does not oppose the Roe v. Wade decision. It is baseless and tyrannical, allowing the imposition of one person's will against the will of another without due process. Any candidate for a position where an abortion decision would be made must support the unborn's right to life in order to win my vote. If no candidate supports that position, I would rather write in Mickey Mouse than vote for either, even if it meant that I would pay no taxes and all the horrible government programs that waste both money and society would go away.
The sanctity of human life is an issue near and dear to the heart of the Lord. Even a rudimentary study of the phrase "innocent blood" in the Bible raises concerns that would give pause to even the staunchest supporter of abortion "rights". It is clear throughout history that shedding innocent blood leads to the destruction of the nation that does so. One need only look at Nazi Germany to see that. There are countless other civilizations that did the same and shared the same fate. The ancient societies of Mexico are one example, as are the Hittites and Jebusites of ancient Palestine. The American Civil War is another example, as payment and penalty for the national sin of slavery. Those who believe in God can easily say that He judges nations that shed innocent blood. Those that do not believe in God might say they are compelled to note an uncanny correlation between innocent blood and national destruction.
The Roe v. Wade decision must be reversed. I feel it would be best if the Supreme Court were given the opportunity to change its decision, but if they are given the opportunity and they fail it is up to us as a nation to amend the Constitution to prevent tyranny. It is in our historical culture and it is our national responsibility, both to the next generation and the world.
Replies: 
(2)
Do you think we would ever have another American Civil War (I hope not) if we fail to get rid of legal abortions?
Posted by Justin Coleman @ 05/09/2004 10:21 PM MST
Possibly. The Civil War was, as far as I'm concerned, payment for the blood shed by the institution of slavery. If we relenquish any claim we have to a 'right' to abortion, we could avoid another Civil War.
The issue, though, with the first Civil War was that there was a much more pronounced difference in the cultures of the North and South. That difference does not exist to the same extent today, but there is a noticeable difference that no one can deny between the cultures of red states (Bush in 2000) vs. blue states (Gore in 2000). If division is one of the prerequisites of Civil War, I think that difference between red & blue states would have to become more pronounced.
Posted by Maynard @ 05/10/2004 07:45 AM MST
Add A New Comment
