We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –
Preamble to the Declaration of Independence
It’s time to choose. Despite all the noise, the
choice between the two major candidates can be reduced to a discussion about
the Constitution. And that Constitutional discussion can be further distilled
down to one issue: abortion. This is true whether you’re a conservative
Christian, a liberal atheist, or anything in between.
But this isn’t “simply” an issue of reproductive
rights; this is more fundamental than that; the issue is where our rights come
from.
Prior to Roe v. Wade (1973) William F. Buckley
devoted an issue of his magazine to the implications of a Supreme Court
decision supporting abortion. One author (I don’t remember who) suggested a
pro-abortion decision would lead to euthanasia for the terminally ill, assisted
suicide for the depressed, government healthcare plans that prioritized
treatment based on costs, abortions for children with birth defects and later
for those with complicated healthcare issues, tailored ‘reproduction’ where
children would only be “allowed to live” if they were “just right,” etc.
These suggestions were derided as ridiculous. One
generation later virtually all of it is true someplace, and may soon be true in
the US.
Mrs. Clinton, and Democratic Party leadership,
believes in an unlimited right to abortion. And, whenever the issue of any
restrictions on abortions has surfaced, she and her peers have vehemently
opposed it. Their ardor in defense of abortion rights translates into defense
of the authority to define when life begins. And ultimately when it ends. Such
an authority expands from there: to support state controlled termination of
life support for the ill (even as they argue for state controlled healthcare),
is to assert that the state defines not only when life begins and ends, but
what quality of life is acceptable, and what isn’t.
But, if the state defines when life begins – which is
the very essence of the abortion “right” – and what life is worthwhile (and
what life isn't) and can define when and how life ends, then the state fully
controls our first right, the key right of all those derived from God (or
nature if you prefer). The unbounded “right” to abortion thus requires
supplanting God with the state.
But, when the state defines life, and death, your
right to life is no longer absolute. In fact, it becomes contingent on the
decisions of the state. Life is no longer “unalienable,” no longer “endowed by
our creator.” Rather, it is conditional, and derived from the state. And if
government controls our right to life, then all lesser rights – and all rights
are lesser than life – are controlled, derived from the state; our rights are
nothing but 'grants' given to us by benign dictators.
And then the rights protected by the Constitution and
Bill of Rights will no longer come from God (or nature); they will come from,
and be defined by, government.
The 58 million abortions in the US since 1973 (1.5
billion worldwide) is, if you believe in the soul, a horror of incalculable
dimensions. But it might lead to even greater horror. The pieces are already in
place; what is happening elsewhere will happen here, beginning slowly, assuming
a progressive justice is appointed to the Supreme Court: first, Catholic
hospitals will be ordered to perform abortions. Then what? Assisted suicide?
Euthanasia? Termination of medical support to ‘ease suffering’ and ‘ending the
burden on loved-ones?’ It’s begun in Europe. Perhaps the “right to abortion”
will grow and change, until only those deemed worthy by the state will be
allowed to give birth. The doors will be wide open, limited only by the
imaginations of bureaucrats and academicians.
Progressives will protest this is nonsense, as they
did 43 years ago. They were wrong then, they are wrong now.
This election will select a
president who’ll either strengthen government's hold on our rights, or one
who’ll defend the premise that rights derive not from the ruling elite, but
come from outside us, from God. Mrs. Clinton has firmly stated her position on
the side of abortion and government oversight of rights. Mr. Trump, for all his
weaknesses, has promised to defend our rights. That is the choice we face.
No comments:
Post a Comment