Eternal Vigilence writes: Sarah Palin, by advocating a position that puts state prerogatives ahead of the unalienable right to life, has proven not to be pro-life, in fact. Just exactly like John McCain, who, by the way, is the one running for President of the United States.
Jeepers, what’s this dispute all about? Both of you seem to think that the answer to our prayers regarding the abortion issue is to see the right to life as fundamentally guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, which holds that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” [bolds added]. [Or yet a new Constitutional Amendment premised on the logic of the Fourteenth.]
But oh my, that seems such a slender reed on which to base the sanctity of human life.
For one thing, it doesn’t answer the fundamental question: Who is a “person?” Only a person can be a citizen and thus come under the protection of the United States; and by virtue of the citizenship relation alone cannot be deprived of life with impunity.
But the Left argues that there is no person until there is a born-alive child. (Some Leftists, such as Peter Singer of Princeton, think a child is not a “person” until it attains the age of 1. Only then does the child have any civil rights.)
Thus “logically,” the Left argues that abortion is not the taking of a human life (because it’s not yet a person, you see — Q.E.D.). Thus the Fourteenth Amendment is not triggered if an abortion is performed, up to and including partial birth abortion.
To me, the life issue is not, nor can it ever be, simply a “legal issue,” with legal remedies. For “personhood” is not something that can be stipulated or defined by law. It is already a given (as we find in the Declaration of Independence), from the moment of conception (“creation”). Thus fundamentally we are dealing with a “moral issue.”
Yet one cannot legislate morality.
The legislature can ban all kinds of things all day long by writing suitable laws. But if it is banning something for which there is public demand, all they will succeed in doing would be to create a black market for that “desired good.” You can make abortion illegal; but you cannot make it go away — unless there is a spirit of moral regeneration in the culture that becomes effective in the hearts and souls and minds of the public.
It is interesting to note that, back in the pre-Roe v. Wade days — back in the day when abortion was regulated by the states — abortionists could be, and were, routinely arrested and prosecuted. Post-Roe v. Wade, this never happens.
The dirty little secret the political/cultural Left doesn’t want you to know is: The reason they wanted to “nationalize” the abortion issue in the first place (i.e., via the federal, not state courts) was because most states were so hostile to it. With a stroke of the pen, Roe v. Wade rendered the laws of all the 50 states unconstitutional; and imposed a federal regime of protection for abortion that is destroying about a million pre-born children every year.
So I just wonder, nmh, why you think abortion should be a federal issue? Do you really believe that a Constitutional Amendment would stamp it out?
In Article IV, Section 4, the Constitution says: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican Form of government….” This form of government recognizes the sovereignty of the individual States with respect to their own self-government, in association with a federal government of strictly limited powers (by my count, there are only 27 direct grants of power to the federal government under the Constitution, and none of them deal directly with life issues, e.g., murder, abortion, probate, etc., which under the federal Constitution historically, traditionally have been left to the states).
Implicit in our constitutional political order is the principle of subsidiarity, which states that public decisions ought to be made at the lowest possible level of competence, where people are directly involved in the issue and most knowledgeable about it.
You and Eternal Vigilence seem to be arguing that nothing is any good unless the federal government is doing it. Seems pretty naïve to me. [But then so is EV’s impending vanity vote for Alan Keyes….]
My own view is: Overturn Roe v. Wade and give the authority on the abortion issue back to the states. They have by far the better record on this issue, historically speaking.
The more abortion becomes a “local” and “state” issue, the more it comes under the direct influence of local, highly motivated and politically active defenders of human life.
The radical Left is well aware of this. They deplore it; for it “devolves” power away from “the federal authority,” which is now largely in the hands of ideological elites, back to the people. Which entails greater human liberty and personal responsibility. And that sort of thing cuts against the very grain of the entire radical Left agenda.
You need to be aware of this, too — if you’re gonna fight the good fight!
Thank you so much for the interesting discussion!
One step at a time.
The first thing we need to do is reverse Roe v. Wade. That was the decision that led to tens of millions of abortions. It was not only morally wrong from a Christian perspective, or even a human perspective. It was also an act of judicial tyranny that was basically unconstitutional.
Then we are back to the states. MOST states will be opposed to abortion on demand. A few—New York, California—may go the other way. Then we can fight the good fight on the state level.
You can also argue that the real meaning of the word “person” in the Constitution means that abortion is just plain unconstitutional. But first we need to reverse Roe, then we can pursue the fight further.
We also need to start appointing decent judges. That is only going to happen under a Republican administration led by people like George W. Bush or Sarah Palin—or, we can hope, John McCain.
It is a multi-pronged problem, and we should not neglect any avenues that will lead to better results in the future.
The more abortion becomes a “local” and “state” issue, the more it comes under the direct influence of local, highly motivated and politically active defenders of human life.
The radical Left is well aware of this. They deplore it; for it “devolves” power away from “the federal authority,” which is now largely in the hands of ideological elites, back to the people. Which entails greater human liberty and personal responsibility. And that sort of thing cuts against the very grain of the entire radical Left agenda.
Bears consistent, drumbeat repeating.
Thank you, betty, for your always fact-based, intelligent, well-reasoned commentary.
~ joanie
Absolutely correct.. The left wants not only national power temporarilly but world power eventually.. Global power is what Marxism or Ssocialism is all about.. Always has been.. the only country left against it is the United States.. many democrats AND republicans are for globalism.. NOW..