Replies

"So, you want to replace pro-death tyrants with pro-life tyrants. That's nice."

Sitetest, different people have different agendas.
Mine is clear: I believe that life is a sacred gift of God, and I believe that we have no right to take it.

In other words, I believe that the divine law of protecting life utterly supersedes any contrary human opinion, including democracy and legal structures.

I want to see life protected, and I am ultimately more committed to seeing innocent life protected than I am to any particular process for getting there.

I am not a majority of the US, nor a majority of an court, nor could I be, because I am only one person. Presumably there are others who think as I do, but we are not majorities either. So, we have not created, nor had a lot of influence on the laws as they exist and the structures that got us there, obviously.

The structures that got us where we are, are a Supreme Court that manufactured a right to abortion on demand in 1973, and then expanded its opinion to make that right quasi absolute. On the matter of euthanasia, we have a judiciary that has decided that "right to die" cases are of a different order than death penalty cases, and that folks like Terri Schiavo are not entitled to the same exhaustive re-review of the FACTS (as opposed to the procedures) that death penalty awardees are. We have executives and legislatures that are not willing to assert powers to override the courts. So, we already have an imperial judiciary, which I did not create (and which I strongly advocated overriding to save Terri Schiavo's life), that created abortion rights and made euthanasia easy (neither of which I support).

There are many arguments.
Some folks are focused on the Constitutional order of thing. That's great, from my perspective. It's interesting, and perhaps it will get to the right result.
But then again, perhaps not. Suppose the Court overruled Roe v. Wade, turning abortion back to the states, and then 32 states voted to have abortion on demand? That certainly could happen. And because the constitutional process, as some see it, was completely respected, that would be the end of the argument. "Well, we tried. We got the process right. But the People were just not with us. Tough luck. The People voted that those babies die, and that is the end of it."

I do not believe that even the People have the "right" to vote that babies die. They might have the POWER to do it, to be sure, but if they do, they are still wrong, and I still want to see them stopped. Because the sacredness of life, being divine law, supersedes the constitution, democracy, and all human law, in my belief.

Therefore, the solution I prefer is for the judiciary, which created the abortion-on-demand right in the first place, should be peopled with men and women with a proper respect for the limits of power of human beings, and a clear understanding of the sacredness of life. Then I would hope that they would review Roe v. Wade and find a 14th Amendment right to due process and equal protection which would force the absolute abolition of abortion in America, except to save the life of the mother, as a matter of the US Constitution. This prevents the electorate of some state from saying "WE vote to kill babies."

I do not believe that human beings have the right to kill babies. And I don't think that they gain the right to kill babies by writing constitutions and creating electoral processes whereby they vote to tell themselves that THEIR law is that it's ok to kill babies. It's all void as far as I am concerned, except insofar as it is backed with the power of violence inherent in government. The law is evil and wrong, but government certainly has the guns to impose it. Which makes the government doubly wrong in such a case.

My objective is to end abortion and the creep towards euthanasia and to protect all sacred life. In the process, I believe that a lot of people will be inadvertently saved from damnation by God for doing what was legal, according to the human law, but utterly prohibited by God.

I know people don't agree with me, and do not particularly care.
Some folks think that the US Constitution is the supreme be all and end all.
I think that the sacredness of life is divine in origin, and that the Constitution is a modest and interesting little piece of human opinion by comparison.

Folks like you and me have to work together in the same society, and usually we do. We agree on the basic: that life should be protected. We disagree not only on the mechanics for getting there, but on the relative importance of the belief. I belief that the right to life is divine, and that is trumps every human law in every case. You don't.

Our compromise is that we work through the legal process, to the extent we are both powerless. If today I were suddenly seized with divine powers like Gideon, I would not SUGGEST that we stop abortion and euthanasia, I would simply impose the rule I believe to be right.

Since I am in no position to do so, I have to work with you. And since you are not in any greater position to do so than me, you have to work with me. To get anything done that is good, therefore, we have to walk as far as we can down the road together.

But at the end of the day, if abortion will be prohibited by imperial judicial action, then I want that action taken NOW, and the democracy can take its time catching up. Because I believe that with life, in particular, because of its uniquely fragile and sacred character, that the cause of life supersedes process and law. I will, of course, find legal justifications for the argument - such as the 14th Amendment argument I gave above. But if there were no 14th Amendment, I would still want to see life protected.

Whatever process we use, the side of evil can always take control again.

You pointed out that those who are pro-death can just get the judiciary back. Sure. But if you turn it over to the democracy, the People of Massachusetts can vote to kill babies. And that does not achieve the necessary result.

Perhaps we differ on objectives.