Very thought provoking post Sam. Thank you.
I know there is a God, and that He hates injustice .... I see the storm coming, and I know that his hand is in it.
-Lincoln
Well thought, well said.
As with slavery, the coming of a clearer view of justice will demand thoughtful persistent advocates and sacrificial witnesses. In retrospect history may seem to roll; it doesn’t seem to to those pushing it.
I don’t normally get involved in abortion discussions. I’m against it but I mostly keep that thought to myself as both sides of the issue are so emotionally invested in their point of view. I don’t reckon I’m going to change anybody’s mind one way or the other so I just avoid the subject as much as possible. But put me down as against it. I’m a parent and a former fetus, so it’s easier for me to take this position . . .
[Sorry, I like your posts, including this one, but that’s how I would rephrase your statement.]
Thank you for your thoughtful commentary on a subject which would have been, in America's founding era, an unthinkable outcome of the philosophical and Constitutional ideas of Creator-endowed life, rights, liberties and laws to protect them which underlay the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States of America.
Yet, since the late 1800's, another, cultish and opposing ideology seems to have permeated--(and seems to dominate)-- much of the body politic.
In the 2016 election, Hillary's flat-out ideological merger with Bernie's Socialist agenda "outs" an oft-overlooked imperative for the Democrat Party's hard and unbending stand on abortion, a stand previously described and declared in the first paragraph of a late-1800's analysis of "The Impracticability of Socialism." In that paragraph, the writer's point seems to be that under Socialism, ordinary human population growth cannot be economically supported.
The following is quoted from the Liberty Fund Library "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay, "The Impracticability of Socialism":Note the writer's emphasis that the "scheme of Socialism" requires what he calls "the power of restraining the increase in population"--long the essential and primary focus of the Democrat Party in the U. S.:
"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. . . .
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON
Of course the pro-abortion agenda completely discards the legal standing of the father. In every other aspect of law that involves children, fathers have rights.
It is easy for many women to take a politically pro-abortion position while identifying as personally pro-life, because those women know that the lives of their own preborn baby daughters and sons will never be at risk.
For a man to surrender to abortion being legal, however, is him surrendering to a legal state of affairs in which his own preborn baby daughters and sons can be murdered by someone else.
Yup you can take the analogy further and say that in both cases, the dispute turned on a Supreme Court case defining a subclass of humans as being without rights, for the convenience of others.