Johnson’s “result” can never be realized because there will always be people who fail to even take care of themselves, however equal we are before the law, however level the playing field, however available opportunities for success. Humans are not—and cannot be made to be—equal in two critical areas: ability and ambition. Some people will always excel: some will always fail. But, a nation where every man has an equal opportunity to succeed, where the rules are applied fairly, where each individual is guaranteed the unfettered ability to pursue his own happiness within the boundaries set by objective law and reason…such a place is one that can and will be created in time, with effort, through education, by reason…but not by force.
Proponents of affirmative action endorse a forced solution to the social problem of racism that actually slows progress and keeps the old sores open and festering. Their solution, of course, violates the rights of all individuals and attempts to cure racism with racism, injustice with injustice. It forces universities, government offices, and business firms of every kind to lower their admissions and hiring standards in order to meet racist demands for “diversity.” Finally, their solution provides the descendants of the oppressed with an excuse for their failure.
If justice was President Kennedy’s objective when he issued Executive Order 10925, what became of affirmative action in reality is abomination. Affirmative action should never have been about correcting the past. Work to ensure that all Americans enjoy a market place free from racial bias is about setting up a better future.
Setting up a better future requires the abandonment of collectivism-altruism in all of its forms. As long as people continue to view themselves as members of some group and not as individuals with their own, self-made identity; as long as people continue to believe sacrifice is a moral duty and that there is virtue in suffering, individual rights will continue to be sacrificed to the collective. The losers will wear their bleeding sores like medals of honor, beating their chests in righteous indignation, drawing imagined power from their suffering.
Setting up a better future is about the recognition of government’s responsibility to protect the rights of individuals to pursue their own happiness. All of the laws protecting the rights of individuals have been on the books since Reconstruction, the Fourteenth Amendment and the incorporation doctrine, Gitlow v. New York, 1925. No new law need be written. [In fact both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were unnecessary, redundant and divisive.] Existing law must be enforced. Victims of discrimination should have the courts to protect them from rogue elements within our country that persist in discriminatory practices. But, sadly, the Supremes got it all wrong, too. Federal courts today use “strict scrutiny” when deciding these cases, and where the court deems necessary, affirmative action [even hiring quotas] has been employed, United States v. Paradise, 1987. In other words, the courts have opted to force violators to change their immoral practices with immoral force, rather than simply to punish violators for their illegal practices. Strict scrutiny wrongly preserves the immoral practices of affirmative action.
A government that fails to protect the rights of all individuals, i.e., each human, every citizen, has failed its primary mandate and has, therefore, lost legitimacy. If the failure is wide-spread [as it was during the 100 years of segregation in this country] then it is the peoples’ right to revolution.
…Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. [Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson]
The Civil Rights Movement [1955-1965] was that revolution, and both the followers of Dr. King and the followers of Malcolm X [however different their tactics] waged and won a just war against an illegitimate government.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Affirmative Action: The Problem
It all begins seemingly innocent enough with Executive Order 10925 issued on March 6, 1961, by President John F. Kennedy creating the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity, mandating that federally financed projects "take affirmative action" to ensure that hiring and employment practices are free of racial bias. Had I been selected to chair this committee, I would have thought my job is to make sure that “hiring and employment practices are free of racial bias.”
Almost immediately, however, the mandate was misread, and thanks to Kennedy’s successor, enforced criminally. On June 4, 1965, in a speech to Howard University graduates, President Lyndon B. Johnson wrongly defined the mandate.
“…You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, 'you are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe you have been completely fair . . . This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result."
Johnson had whittled a club of righteousness for the oppressed, arming and enabling them to turn the tables and begin the legal repression of their former oppressors. For Johnson the mandate was a means to correct past injustices leveled against black individuals in this country. How? By sacrificing the rights of contemporary and future white individuals.
This misunderstood mandate to ensure “freedom from racial bias” created a new kind of racial bias…this time blacks would enjoy preferential treatment. This mandate for justice would instead create a new kind of injustice. This time whites would be the victims. White individuals for generations would be made to suffer penance for the wrong-doing, not of their parents or grandparents necessarily, but for sins committed by the collective, white race. Just as the entire black race for a hundred years after the abolition of slavery was denied equal protection and equal opportunity, the entire white race would be denied.
In this way some feel the scales of justice will be placed in balance. Those who think know better.
You would think the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States would be listed among those who think. The Court has decided dozens of affirmative action cases over the years, and while it has struck down the most blatant violations of individual rights, the Court has utterly failed to recognize and protect the rights of individuals living and competing in a world “free from racial bias.” For example, in 1978, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the Supremes ruled that racial quotas are unconstitutional. The justices, however, surrendered objectivity when in the same ruling they declared that race may be used as a factor in college admissions, that “diversity” is a “compelling state interest.” A better decision in 1996, Hopwood v. University of Texas Law School, reversed Bakke’s diversity argument. For seven good years justice prevailed in college admissions when finally in June, 2003, the Supreme Court [5-4] upheld a University of Michigan Law School admissions policy, ruling that race can be one of many factors considered by colleges when selecting their students because it furthers "a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."
Objectivist scholar Peter Schwartz in his essay The Racism of "Diversity" published by the Ayn Rand Institute December 11, 2003, said it best:
"The notion of "diversity" entails exactly the same premises as racism--that one's ideas are determined by one's race and that the source of an individual's identity is his ethnic heritage…According to its proponents, we need "diversity" in order to be exposed to new perspectives on life. We supposedly gain "enrichment from the differences in viewpoint of minorities," as the MIT Faculty Newsletter puts it. Admissions should be based on race, the University of Michigan's vice president insists, because "learning in a diverse environment benefits all students, minority and majority alike."
"These circumlocutions translate simply into this: one's race determines the content of one's mind. They imply that people have worthwhile views to express because of their ethnicity, and that "diversity" enables us to encounter "black ideas," "Hispanic ideas," etc. What could be more repulsively racist than that?"
Collectivism, the failure to recognize the fact that there is no such thing as “group thought” or “group rights,” that only individuals have brains and there are only individual rights, is the core element of the corrupt thinking that goes into racism as well as calls for affirmative action. Ironically, proponents of affirmative action view the world through the same eyes as their former, segregationist opponents: It’s our group against theirs. So blacks caucus in Congress to do battle with whites for the rights they have been denied for so long, as if justice is possible only to either…or, but not to all. The grandchildren of the oppressed [who themselves have never been oppressed] rage on that they have been “hobbled by chains” for centuries, that it’s not enough to simply remove the chains…
You must wear them now.
Almost immediately, however, the mandate was misread, and thanks to Kennedy’s successor, enforced criminally. On June 4, 1965, in a speech to Howard University graduates, President Lyndon B. Johnson wrongly defined the mandate.
“…You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, 'you are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe you have been completely fair . . . This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result."
Johnson had whittled a club of righteousness for the oppressed, arming and enabling them to turn the tables and begin the legal repression of their former oppressors. For Johnson the mandate was a means to correct past injustices leveled against black individuals in this country. How? By sacrificing the rights of contemporary and future white individuals.
This misunderstood mandate to ensure “freedom from racial bias” created a new kind of racial bias…this time blacks would enjoy preferential treatment. This mandate for justice would instead create a new kind of injustice. This time whites would be the victims. White individuals for generations would be made to suffer penance for the wrong-doing, not of their parents or grandparents necessarily, but for sins committed by the collective, white race. Just as the entire black race for a hundred years after the abolition of slavery was denied equal protection and equal opportunity, the entire white race would be denied.
In this way some feel the scales of justice will be placed in balance. Those who think know better.
You would think the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States would be listed among those who think. The Court has decided dozens of affirmative action cases over the years, and while it has struck down the most blatant violations of individual rights, the Court has utterly failed to recognize and protect the rights of individuals living and competing in a world “free from racial bias.” For example, in 1978, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the Supremes ruled that racial quotas are unconstitutional. The justices, however, surrendered objectivity when in the same ruling they declared that race may be used as a factor in college admissions, that “diversity” is a “compelling state interest.” A better decision in 1996, Hopwood v. University of Texas Law School, reversed Bakke’s diversity argument. For seven good years justice prevailed in college admissions when finally in June, 2003, the Supreme Court [5-4] upheld a University of Michigan Law School admissions policy, ruling that race can be one of many factors considered by colleges when selecting their students because it furthers "a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."
Objectivist scholar Peter Schwartz in his essay The Racism of "Diversity" published by the Ayn Rand Institute December 11, 2003, said it best:
"The notion of "diversity" entails exactly the same premises as racism--that one's ideas are determined by one's race and that the source of an individual's identity is his ethnic heritage…According to its proponents, we need "diversity" in order to be exposed to new perspectives on life. We supposedly gain "enrichment from the differences in viewpoint of minorities," as the MIT Faculty Newsletter puts it. Admissions should be based on race, the University of Michigan's vice president insists, because "learning in a diverse environment benefits all students, minority and majority alike."
"These circumlocutions translate simply into this: one's race determines the content of one's mind. They imply that people have worthwhile views to express because of their ethnicity, and that "diversity" enables us to encounter "black ideas," "Hispanic ideas," etc. What could be more repulsively racist than that?"
Collectivism, the failure to recognize the fact that there is no such thing as “group thought” or “group rights,” that only individuals have brains and there are only individual rights, is the core element of the corrupt thinking that goes into racism as well as calls for affirmative action. Ironically, proponents of affirmative action view the world through the same eyes as their former, segregationist opponents: It’s our group against theirs. So blacks caucus in Congress to do battle with whites for the rights they have been denied for so long, as if justice is possible only to either…or, but not to all. The grandchildren of the oppressed [who themselves have never been oppressed] rage on that they have been “hobbled by chains” for centuries, that it’s not enough to simply remove the chains…
You must wear them now.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Abortion: The Solution
As I have said previously, forty states have laws banning post-viability abortions. Good, old-fashioned, American horse sense caused this phenomenon. Federalism facilitated it. However this consensus came to pass is not the issue, Mr. Huckabee. The fact that the solution I am proposing already exists is something of note.
Most of these forty states have laws designed to deter even first trimester abortion within their state. For example, 30 states require a patient to be counseled and educated about alternatives to abortion; 38 states require a minor child to get permission from a parent in order to have an abortion; 43 states require abortions be performed by licensed physicians only; 18 states require a waiting period. All of these laws place obstacles in the path of a young woman seeking an abortion. In some cases the laws are not enforced. All have been upheld by the courts.
Government has only two tools at its disposal when its goal is to shape public opinion. They are: force and persuasion. Force is the tool preferred by the religionist, extremist, Right-to-Lifer who would amend the constitution to ban all abortions. “People will be forced to be ‘moral’ whether they like it or not, regardless of the consequences.” For most Americans, of course, force is un-American and unacceptable. The road blocks [mentioned above] were created by the various states to deter abortions, to persuade women to make a different choice. However much I may wish these obstacles be lifted, I must accept persuasion as a fair exercise of governmental power. In fact, my solution will require the state to counsel every woman seeking an abortion. Woman must be educated about their options.
Access to abortion should be wholly unfettered as long as the woman is less than 20 weeks pregnant. After 20 weeks viability testing should be required by law.
If a mother does not want to have the baby, but fails [for whatever reason] to make the decision to abort before viability, she should not be forced to have the baby. No one has the right to force someone to be a parent. What options are available to the state in these cases?
1. The state may counsel the woman, encourage her to carry the baby to term, deliver, and then put the baby up for adoption.
2. If the woman refuses to carry the baby to term [as is her right], the state will accommodate the woman and remove the baby. The baby will not be aborted…it will be delivered.
3. The biological mother, father, and their families forfeit all rights to the offspring once the decision to terminate the pregnancy, to “deliver,” is made.
4. The cost of keeping the premature baby alive will be paid by the adopting parents.
My solution requires acceptance of all pre-viability abortions and an absolute ban on all post-viability abortions [with the exception of the mother’s health]. For those who believe the unalienable right to life begins at conception, this solution is unacceptable. Because their arguments rely on submission to the teachings of their ancient faith and their unsubstantiated belief that a God delivers a soul to the bundle of cells, their arguments require no consideration by the rational, objective lawmaker. The religionists are free to voice their objections to secular law and science. They are free to live their own lives in accordance with their faith, but they have no right to force their irrational faith on others.
My solution saves the lives of viable, thinking, unborn, human babies in every instance. My solution protects the privacy rights of the pregnant young woman. My solution requires no woman to carry to term an unwanted pregnancy. My solution kills no babies.
Most of these forty states have laws designed to deter even first trimester abortion within their state. For example, 30 states require a patient to be counseled and educated about alternatives to abortion; 38 states require a minor child to get permission from a parent in order to have an abortion; 43 states require abortions be performed by licensed physicians only; 18 states require a waiting period. All of these laws place obstacles in the path of a young woman seeking an abortion. In some cases the laws are not enforced. All have been upheld by the courts.
Government has only two tools at its disposal when its goal is to shape public opinion. They are: force and persuasion. Force is the tool preferred by the religionist, extremist, Right-to-Lifer who would amend the constitution to ban all abortions. “People will be forced to be ‘moral’ whether they like it or not, regardless of the consequences.” For most Americans, of course, force is un-American and unacceptable. The road blocks [mentioned above] were created by the various states to deter abortions, to persuade women to make a different choice. However much I may wish these obstacles be lifted, I must accept persuasion as a fair exercise of governmental power. In fact, my solution will require the state to counsel every woman seeking an abortion. Woman must be educated about their options.
Access to abortion should be wholly unfettered as long as the woman is less than 20 weeks pregnant. After 20 weeks viability testing should be required by law.
If a mother does not want to have the baby, but fails [for whatever reason] to make the decision to abort before viability, she should not be forced to have the baby. No one has the right to force someone to be a parent. What options are available to the state in these cases?
1. The state may counsel the woman, encourage her to carry the baby to term, deliver, and then put the baby up for adoption.
2. If the woman refuses to carry the baby to term [as is her right], the state will accommodate the woman and remove the baby. The baby will not be aborted…it will be delivered.
3. The biological mother, father, and their families forfeit all rights to the offspring once the decision to terminate the pregnancy, to “deliver,” is made.
4. The cost of keeping the premature baby alive will be paid by the adopting parents.
My solution requires acceptance of all pre-viability abortions and an absolute ban on all post-viability abortions [with the exception of the mother’s health]. For those who believe the unalienable right to life begins at conception, this solution is unacceptable. Because their arguments rely on submission to the teachings of their ancient faith and their unsubstantiated belief that a God delivers a soul to the bundle of cells, their arguments require no consideration by the rational, objective lawmaker. The religionists are free to voice their objections to secular law and science. They are free to live their own lives in accordance with their faith, but they have no right to force their irrational faith on others.
My solution saves the lives of viable, thinking, unborn, human babies in every instance. My solution protects the privacy rights of the pregnant young woman. My solution requires no woman to carry to term an unwanted pregnancy. My solution kills no babies.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Abortion: The Rationale
The reason for most of the debate surrounding the abortion issue is our failure to properly define “human life.” Without a proper, rational definition, no solution is possible. For Ayn Rand resolving the abortion debate required only a firm recognition of the rights of individuals and a few precise definitions:
“An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only an actual human being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet living [or the unborn].
“Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the soul discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?” [AR, 1968]
But Ayn Rand went on to explain that her reasoning addressed only 1st trimester abortions. “One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue [Roe v. Wade] concerns only the first three months.”
There can be no rational argument against Rand’s position on first trimester abortions. As long as the potential life is wholly dependant upon the mother, it as much a part of her body as her heart, or her brain, or her kidneys. If a young woman chooses to give one of her kidneys to a dying, transplant recipient, she’ll be praised for the sacrifice even if the procedure leaves her own body less healthy. Her gift of living tissue will have saved another human’s life. The donor’s kidney is mindless, living tissue. It belongs to the donor. She’s free to do with it whatever she wishes. The young woman is free to refuse to donate her organ as well. The fact that her refusal could result in a kidney patients’ death is irrelevant. She will not be charged with a crime. No one would call her choice immoral. The donor’s kidney is mindless, living tissue. It belongs to the donor. She’s free to do with it whatever she wishes [except sell it. Sadly, that’s against the law in the United States].
I think it’s clear that even in America where the government has claimed the right to sample your bodily fluids before you can get a job, current law recognizes the fact that our bodies belong to us.
But what if the living tissue is not mindless? What if it doesn’t require the young woman’s beating heart for its existence?
An unborn baby 25 to 30 weeks into a pregnancy is no longer a bundle of cells or a fetus, wholly dependant upon its mother for life. It’s a baby that can be born, that can live without its mother. The unborn baby does not have rights equal to that of the mother, but once it is viable, capable of living without its mother, it must certainly have at least the right to continue its existence.
The existence of a heartbeat [which occurs only weeks into a pregnancy] is not a proper way to determine whether or not a human being is alive. The heart is a mindless muscle tasked to supply the human brain and the rest of the body with oxygen-rich blood. A human being’s existence is measured by brain activity. Everything that a human being is, is located between his/her ears. Our brains are what distinguish us from the other animals and from each other. If there is a soul, it is our conscious and subconscious mind at work. An unborn baby with a working brain exists. It can feel.
The state does have a responsibility to protect the existence of a viable, thinking, unborn baby.
“An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only an actual human being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet living [or the unborn].
“Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the soul discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?” [AR, 1968]
But Ayn Rand went on to explain that her reasoning addressed only 1st trimester abortions. “One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue [Roe v. Wade] concerns only the first three months.”
There can be no rational argument against Rand’s position on first trimester abortions. As long as the potential life is wholly dependant upon the mother, it as much a part of her body as her heart, or her brain, or her kidneys. If a young woman chooses to give one of her kidneys to a dying, transplant recipient, she’ll be praised for the sacrifice even if the procedure leaves her own body less healthy. Her gift of living tissue will have saved another human’s life. The donor’s kidney is mindless, living tissue. It belongs to the donor. She’s free to do with it whatever she wishes. The young woman is free to refuse to donate her organ as well. The fact that her refusal could result in a kidney patients’ death is irrelevant. She will not be charged with a crime. No one would call her choice immoral. The donor’s kidney is mindless, living tissue. It belongs to the donor. She’s free to do with it whatever she wishes [except sell it. Sadly, that’s against the law in the United States].
I think it’s clear that even in America where the government has claimed the right to sample your bodily fluids before you can get a job, current law recognizes the fact that our bodies belong to us.
But what if the living tissue is not mindless? What if it doesn’t require the young woman’s beating heart for its existence?
An unborn baby 25 to 30 weeks into a pregnancy is no longer a bundle of cells or a fetus, wholly dependant upon its mother for life. It’s a baby that can be born, that can live without its mother. The unborn baby does not have rights equal to that of the mother, but once it is viable, capable of living without its mother, it must certainly have at least the right to continue its existence.
The existence of a heartbeat [which occurs only weeks into a pregnancy] is not a proper way to determine whether or not a human being is alive. The heart is a mindless muscle tasked to supply the human brain and the rest of the body with oxygen-rich blood. A human being’s existence is measured by brain activity. Everything that a human being is, is located between his/her ears. Our brains are what distinguish us from the other animals and from each other. If there is a soul, it is our conscious and subconscious mind at work. An unborn baby with a working brain exists. It can feel.
The state does have a responsibility to protect the existence of a viable, thinking, unborn baby.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Abortion: The Problem
WASHINGTON - Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee rejects letting states decide whether to allow abortions, claiming the right to life is a moral issue not subject to multiple interpretations.
“It's the logic of the Civil War," Huckabee said Sunday, comparing abortion rights to slavery. "If morality is the point here, and if it's right or wrong, not just a political question, then you can't have 50 different versions of what's right and what's wrong." [AP, Nov. 18, 2007]
Mr. Huckabee would be wise to remember the old adage: “Be careful what you wish for.” Apparently this wanna-bee-president is not aware of the fact that most states’ abortion laws readily accept the federal decision to protect a woman’s right to a first trimester abortion. State legislatures are close to their people. They reflect the will of the people with greater accuracy and clarity than the federal government in Washington DC. There’s no reason to believe that federal legislation would yield a different result. Extremists like Mr. Huckabee would surely lose if abortion rights were determined by some sort of national referendum. Every woman in America 35-years-old or younger has lived her entire life with the knowledge that if necessary, abortion is a legal option. Most people—however much they deplore abortion—recognize the decision to have children belongs to the parents, not government.
If not for extremists on both sides of the abortion argument, a rational, objective solution to the problem is well in hand. In fact, 40 state legislatures have already arrived at the most essential truth, the proverbial line in the sand, the key word: viability.
Pro-life extremists, governed by their feelings and mystical revelation believe blindly that life begins at conception when a God places an undetectable, immortal soul into the microscopic embryo. From that moment on, in their minds, that potential life has as much right to exist as its 14-year-old mother struggling to pass middle school mathematics. There’s no reasoning with this group. The worst elements among them have actually bombed abortion clinics and murdered doctors who perform abortions. There is no chance this group will even consider taking a more scientific look at this question. Most are not violent, to be true, but that is only because most still retain some hope that the judiciary will reverse nearly forty years of settled law. [Roe v. Wade, protects a woman’s right to an abortion in the first trimester.] If you think these people are so far out of the mainstream that they could never achieve their goal, keep in mind our current president shares their values.
Pro-choice extremists, so determined to protect a woman’s right to reproductive choice, health, and privacy, are forced by their formidable adversaries to take indefensible positions [e.g. supporting partial-birth abortion] for fear that any concession to the right will result in a total loss down the road. They are right to oppose the religionist, extremists on the other side, but they lose credibility and their majority when they try to defend the indefensible. To kill a fully-formed, viable, unborn human being is not reasonable unless the procedure is deemed necessary to protect the life of the mother.
A compromise between these two irrational camps is not the solution. The solution is reason and objective law, law devoid of feelings, mysticism, prejudices, fear, or favorite ideas. The solution will require a truly creative, new look at the issues at stake. How is human life to be defined? When does a potential human life acquire the unalienable right to exist? How do we balance a woman’s right to privacy with an unborn baby’s right to exist?
“It's the logic of the Civil War," Huckabee said Sunday, comparing abortion rights to slavery. "If morality is the point here, and if it's right or wrong, not just a political question, then you can't have 50 different versions of what's right and what's wrong." [AP, Nov. 18, 2007]
Mr. Huckabee would be wise to remember the old adage: “Be careful what you wish for.” Apparently this wanna-bee-president is not aware of the fact that most states’ abortion laws readily accept the federal decision to protect a woman’s right to a first trimester abortion. State legislatures are close to their people. They reflect the will of the people with greater accuracy and clarity than the federal government in Washington DC. There’s no reason to believe that federal legislation would yield a different result. Extremists like Mr. Huckabee would surely lose if abortion rights were determined by some sort of national referendum. Every woman in America 35-years-old or younger has lived her entire life with the knowledge that if necessary, abortion is a legal option. Most people—however much they deplore abortion—recognize the decision to have children belongs to the parents, not government.
If not for extremists on both sides of the abortion argument, a rational, objective solution to the problem is well in hand. In fact, 40 state legislatures have already arrived at the most essential truth, the proverbial line in the sand, the key word: viability.
Pro-life extremists, governed by their feelings and mystical revelation believe blindly that life begins at conception when a God places an undetectable, immortal soul into the microscopic embryo. From that moment on, in their minds, that potential life has as much right to exist as its 14-year-old mother struggling to pass middle school mathematics. There’s no reasoning with this group. The worst elements among them have actually bombed abortion clinics and murdered doctors who perform abortions. There is no chance this group will even consider taking a more scientific look at this question. Most are not violent, to be true, but that is only because most still retain some hope that the judiciary will reverse nearly forty years of settled law. [Roe v. Wade, protects a woman’s right to an abortion in the first trimester.] If you think these people are so far out of the mainstream that they could never achieve their goal, keep in mind our current president shares their values.
Pro-choice extremists, so determined to protect a woman’s right to reproductive choice, health, and privacy, are forced by their formidable adversaries to take indefensible positions [e.g. supporting partial-birth abortion] for fear that any concession to the right will result in a total loss down the road. They are right to oppose the religionist, extremists on the other side, but they lose credibility and their majority when they try to defend the indefensible. To kill a fully-formed, viable, unborn human being is not reasonable unless the procedure is deemed necessary to protect the life of the mother.
A compromise between these two irrational camps is not the solution. The solution is reason and objective law, law devoid of feelings, mysticism, prejudices, fear, or favorite ideas. The solution will require a truly creative, new look at the issues at stake. How is human life to be defined? When does a potential human life acquire the unalienable right to exist? How do we balance a woman’s right to privacy with an unborn baby’s right to exist?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)