Boortz was right—the pro-lifer contingency will hijack their own party’s candidate and destroy them if they refuse to profess their dedication to the one and only cause that pro-lifers care about. Maybe we need to consider candidates whose number one priority is not overturning Roe v. Wade, but nevertheless have a passion for and commitment to protecting our constitution, and are strong conservatives overall. Otherwise, we can count on more rule by the left. Boortz is merely suggesting that we not cannibalize our own party.
Don’t send me nasty comments. Don’t assume I am pro-whatever. You don’t know me. Someone needs to offer the opinion of the other voices in the conservative movement. We all need to get logical regarding the future of the GOP, and Boortz addressed a serious underlying issue.
Oh spare us...
I listened to him today on the topic, much as I did not want to do so. I have long known about his position vis a vis abortion and it is the main sticking point against him, in my mind.
The problem for him is exactly as he outlined it today: the question is who owns the pregnant woman’s body, herself or the government? That seems a reasonable question but begs a larger issue. If the woman owns her body, then she is sovereign and can do whatever she wants with whatever part of it she wishes. There is a certain consistency about that, taken by itself, but the problem emerges when she gets herself pregnant (note how I phrased that, it was deliberate). She is now the vessel of another person, just as human as she is and only having half of her DNA makeup (hence, the child is not simply another bit of her body). Once this is true, then the same rights that attend her own self-ownership also attend to the child, even as it is in her womb. Boortz suggests that she still owns the fetus because it is, in his mind, still under her sovereign control as being part of her. As I just pointed out, if there is foreign matter in the child (the DNA from the father), then the child is not an integral part of the mother and she has no unilateral right of disposal over it.
This is the problem Boortz never addresses. He places the dichotomy between person and government. Both are inferior authorities in reality, because both are creatures. Only a Creator has sufficient authority and perspective to correctly determine when a person’s life may be terminated without due process (He actually does such a thing, we just don’t see it). The moral law which underpins the authority of the woman and the government both are underpinned by the authority established by God. So long as Boortz keeps God out of the equation, the problem will never be solved: the two creaturely authoritiess will forever conflict and are always subject to revision, depending on perception and desires. God’s law never changes. That is its greatest advantage is such cases.
Now the more interesting question revolves around the DNA contributed by the father. If he refuses permission for her to destroy what he contributed, then she should be estopped from having the abortion. What to do with the born child is another issue, but that will become part of the process sooner or later.
“Commitment to protecting our constitution” while offering tacit approval of the most blatantly fabricated decision in the history of the Supreme Court. Doesnt work.
I dont care if a pol is pro-choice or pro-life but if I cant trust you on Roe I cant trust you on Kelo.