Posted on 03/13/2009 1:32:40 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
Once again we are supposed to believe that Michael Steele had a slip of the tongue. This time in an Interview with Gentleman's Quarterly magazine which included the following exchange:
"The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion," he said. "My mother chose life. So I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other."Interviewer Lisa DePaulo asked: "Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?"
Steele replied: "Yeah. I mean, again, I think that's an individual choice."
DePaulo: "You do?"
Steele: "Yeah. Absolutely."
DePaulo: "Are you saying you don't want to overturn Roe v. Wade?"
Steele: "I think Roe v. Wade — as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter."
DePaulo: "Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?"
Steele: "The states should make that choice. That's what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide."
Twice before on this site (look under the topic GOP failure) I have discussed Steele's departure from the pro-life stance. Yet in a way not clearly in evidence before, this interview reveals the insidious character of the argument Steele represents. According to this argument, individual choices are not subject to interference by the Federal government. Rather you state the case for one side or the other, and let the individual decide. The problem is, of course, that matters of justice, of right and wrong, always involve individual choices. The choice to rob, lie, cheat and murder are all individual choices. The choice to rape, kidnap and enslave another is an individual choice. The choice to serve or not to serve someone in a restaurant, on account of their race, is an individual choice. Obviously the real issue is not whether individuals are free to choose between right and wrong. That's been clear since Eve made her fateful decision to eat the forbidden fruit. The issue is when and whether they have the right to choose as they do.
American liberty is founded on the premise that we are all created equal and endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. This premise is not a statement about human aspirations. It's a statement about right and wrong. An unalienable right can be transgressed by individuals and governments, but the premise of liberty forbids the assertion that those who transgress they have the right to do so. Right is not on the side of government when it commits or tolerates murder, theft and terror against the innocent. Individuals and laws that do so are inherently unjust, and powers used in this way are not lawful powers.
Steele consistently maintains that issues, like abortion, that involve respect for unalienable rights, are properly decided at the state rather than the Federal level. But the premise of liberty makes no such distinction. Respect for unalienable rights is required of human governments at any and all levels, because the just powers of all such governments are derived from the people's exercise of those rights. As the Federal government only has the powers delegated to it by the states, so the state governments only have the powers delegated to them by the people. But the "unalienable" aspect of each person's rights means that such rights cannot be given away, not under any circumstances. What the people cannot rightly give, the states cannot rightly claim.
But the premise of liberty includes the notion that "to secure these rights governments are instituted among men." Though government cannot claim the power to transgress against unalienable rights, the foundational purpose of government entails the obligation to preserve and respect them. No government powers are just except those derived from the only source consistent with this obligation, which is the consent of the people. Clearly however, the idea of consent based on respect for unalienable rights does not mean that the people have the right to do whatever they please, since they cannot rightly do anything that alienates (contradicts or surrenders) their unalienable rights. In this sense, government of by and for the people, is limited government: not only limited by the terms of its constitution, but by the purpose and terms of its institution or establishment. Liberty therefore is not identical with a simply unlimited freedom to choose. Individuals are free to choose actions that violate unalienable right, but they cannot claim the right to do so.
When, in their individual or collective capacity, people choose to violate unalienable rights they transgress liberty. Since liberty is its essential characteristic, this transgression effectively abandons the republican form of government. When an individual commits this transgression, it is a criminal act. When a government commits this transgression, it is an unlawful government. Under our constitution the supervision of this transgression when committed by individuals, has been left to the states. But if and when a state or states neglect this supervision, the U.S. Constitution (Article IV, section 4) explicitly requires that the government of the United States guarantee a republican form of government in each of the states. Like the guarantor of a loan, it must intervene to make good any deficiency in the states' respect for its requirements. Michael Steele's assertion that the states have the exclusive right to decide the issue of abortion is therefore incorrect. They should have the opportunity to decide it (which is one of the reasons the Roe v. Wade decision was prudentially wrong) but if they decide, by action or neglect, in favor of committing or allowing the violation of unalienable right, the Federal government has the Constitutional obligation to intervene. On abortion it may be sensible, after so many years of misplaced respect for the unlawful Roe v. Wade decision, to make this obligation clear to all the states by Federal legislation in some form. This could help to avoid miscalculations that might disrupt our civil peace. For this reason I think that such legislation, including a Constitutional amendment may be prudent. However, our reasoning here makes clear that it is not legally or Constitutionally necessary.
Finally, I think it's time we all stopped pretending that Steele's persistent advocacy of the "pro-choice" position is an accident, or a slip of the tongue. I believe these episodes are purposeful. His actions are meant to assert the fallacy that it is pro-life to be pro-choice. But this means accepting the position that at some level the choice to murder an innocent human being is consistent with respect for the unalienable right to life. Except we embrace the noxious position that right and wrong choices are equally just, this is not and can never be a pro-life view. Except we abandon the whole idea of unalienable right, this is not and can never be a view consistent with American liberty.
I think that Steele and the people he represents have gotten away with this disingenuous effort to warp, distract and mislead the pro-life movement for long enough. This issue is vital to the survival of America's free institutions. People of conscience deserve a frank and purposeful debate about it, not a sly attempt at argument by inadvertence. To that end I challenge Michael Steele to face me in such a debate, in a venue open to scrutiny by the general public. Though the courage to debate is not the test of truth, it may be a test of true conviction. I claim to be pro-life because I have stood that test, against Barack Obama, Alan Dershowitz and others. Why should pro-life people accept Steele's protestations of pro-life conviction if he refuses to do so?
For more current writing from Alan Keyes, please visit www.LoyaltoLiberty.com!
We need to work on getting Steele out of there quick. - He is a real loose cannon.
Nonsense. It wasn’t the reasoning of Blackmun. It was an admission that in order to allow for abortion they had to strip away the humanity of the child to even have ANY way of overcoming the Constitution’s most explicit provisions.
I think those who admit that the unborn child is a person and yet think that in America that child can still be “legally” killed are worse than Blackmun. They’ve gone one more large stride down the road to the complete destruction of liberty in America.
That’s right. Liberty’s very premise is that government’s abiding and paramount reason for being is the protection of innocent human life. ALL governments. At every level.
The current ignorance of America’s most fundamental principles among the people, even here on FreeRepublic, is appalling.
Gosh. I guess you should have read the post right after it, which went up not even a minute later.
The Inalienable right he was takling about was the right to life.
Which formed part of the basis for Blackmun's "reasoning" stripping the states of their historic and inherent police powers, then substituting a purported 14th Amendment right of women to kill their babies. Leftists use the 14th Amendment as the basis for unlimited federal powers in place of the states.
At first I liked Steele after seeing him on FOX during the year. I changed my mind when he threw Rush under the bus on that black liberal show and then when he gave in to the pro choice question. To me it’s fence sitting or like voting “present”. Luke warm water makes you want to spit it out. He doesn’t have the backbone to stand up for what the party represents. Sorry Steele, we need a natural born leader not a wuss.
Which even in your heavily altered form failed to support your claims.
what a bizzare tagline.
If I was looking out solely for my own self-interest, I’d want him to stay right where he is. I’m the chairman of the third-largest party in the country, and he’s a one-man wrecking crew.
You throw him out and they’ll probably pick someone who isn’t fundamentally different than Steele on principle, but who is a more capable liar.
But we’ve made a commitment to challenge anyone who holds the egregious views that Steele holds, no matter the personal cost.
Are you sure there would be enough folks left on the other side to mount such an effort in the hardcore baby butchery states? Many Freepers on this thread seem to advocate leaving a state in protest that babies may be butchered. Besides, I bet it would be just as difficult or even easier to pass some type of national legislation than to try to outlaw baby butchery in NY or CA.
Overturning roe is a start. But then, I bet it will take national action to save those Americans who have the bad luck to be in the womb in a pro-baby butchery states. It would be like tolerating being able to enslave Americans in some states.
Freegards
They're not "altered" one tiny bit. The so-called Preamble, the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment are all lists. Leaving out the other items on those lists does not change the substance even one iota. It simply clarifies what it explicitly says.
And since folks like you obviously need some clarity brought to this most important of all questions, I simply helped you out.
Sorry. But you can't kill innocent persons in America no matter who you are and claim to be within the bounds of the clear provisions of our Constitution. All you can do is dehumanize the child, lie, and/or obfuscate the truth.
And, Steele was right, ‘abortion is an individual choice”...the woman ( and man if involved) CHOOSE abortion...whether legally, or illegally. That was his point.
Even if you go state by state, the issue still has not been dealt with by conservatives, that is always a hidden argument...do you just prosecute the doctor? Or also the woman...and husband if they “choose” abortion? Until that is clarifed, we send a lot of conflicting messages. After all, all those involved would be complicit.
He couldn't have had...These Steele supportors threw him under the bus and gave us 'Obama' instead...
Sadly, if Alan were white he would be a much more formidable spokesman, for conservative candidates, maybe even been President.
Exactly! Unfortunately they want business as usual, they seem to enjoy secondary status. That’s good because that is where they shall remain.
The...multiple...redactions...don't...count...? Is...that...a...new...14th...Amendment...emanation...of...a...penumbra?
But you can't kill innocent persons in America no matter who you are
But you think that the judicial expansion of the 14th Amendment and the transfer of state police powers to the federal government that resulted in the killings of millions of babies should not only stand, but should be strengthened. Making the federal district courts the sole arbiters of the respective rights of mother and child is a recipe for more of the same. Which is why the left loves judicial legislation and twisting the wording of the Constitution.
Hardly, Steele is not the right man for the job. There may not even be a right man, but Steele is doing more damage than he is worth.
...not to mention allowing that freakshow "refrigerator" Perry to score a touchdown in the Super Bowl instead of the greatest football player in history, Walter Payton.
You care to post a narrative on how all of Obama's opponents were clobbered, in Illinois?
Overturning this may be a patchwork of increments, as was slavery. It was legal in some states, illegal in others. Some states mandated returning runaways to their "owners"; others did not. The fights started over whether to allow slavery in the newly-acquired territories. This is and will continue to be a long war. Please read post 91.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.