It seems to me that it is an extremely tenuous position to argue that Free Agency equals allowing abortion to be sanctioned by law. It absolutely does not equal requiring it to be sanctioned by law. I defer to the article by Russell M. Ballard in October's Ensign for further support in this matter. "Man-made rules have now legalized that which has been forbidden by God from the dawn of time! Human reasoning has twisted and transformed absolute truth into sound-bite slogans that promote a practice that is consummately wrong."(Abortion: An Assault on the Defenseless)
People kill adults as well, but no life-loving person would claim that the law should allow for cold-blooded murder. The insidious effects of abortion on demand stretch far beyond the choices made by the unfortunate individuals who choose to have them. In multiple dimensions. And the Pro-abortionists try to keep education shut down on what abortion entails, what its effects are, and who it effects. Not to mention that the efforts of the Pro-abortion movement really are on the other side--Satan's side--in worldwide movements away from family-oriented societies towards modern hedonism. I won't try to document this now, but it's a well-founded assertion.
Even if abortion is a tenable position for a believer in Christ's freedom to allow, it was an evil power-play when unelected Justices of the Supreme Court overturned laws all around the country by inventing a right which had nothing to do with the Constitution, and nothing to do with their role as Justices. I think that this aspect of Roe v. Wade is the least known aspect of things as they stand in the popular mind, primarily because the media and liberal education haven't educated the public on this. They've shied away from it from day one. "Constitutionality" should not be a means towards whatever end the liberals amongst society decides it desires. There is very real danger in that transition. Roe v. Wade deserves being overturned on the merits. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not dumb enough to not know that it's basis is of the shakiest type. I'll be happy to link to documents describing that if anyone is interested.
It's a fortunate fact that the nation as a whole has moved quite a way towards the pro-life position. This is why it was almost completely avoided by the Obama campaign after the primaries were won.
As an appointee of Bush's Secretary of Labor to a Presidential commission I have had the opportunity to see first hand the corruption that our political system has and how it is set up for inaction. With over 50,000 lobbyists in DC its a wonder it doesn't sink into the Ocean. Republicans and Democrats are bought and sold on a daily basis by greed, power, and money.
Everyone tires of the "evils" of modern day politics. No one likes lobbyists per se. But it's also silly to think that money shouldn't play a role in politics. Of course it should. Otherwise, only raw manipulation of power does--Soviet style, or if you prefer, Gadianton style. The greed and power forces that you mention before money have a lot to do with those styles, as does money--but money can also be a force for good. I sincerely feel along with you that it would be much better if we could have shear integrity in every beating heart at every government post. We're a long, long ways from that...but compared to many other nations, it can get a lot worse from where we are. Our government is still amongst the best in the world. And money has played a healthy role in that in many ways. People being willing to spend money on their cause (and yes even business spending money on their cause) trumps no cause getting attention but the party boss' and revolutionaries' cause.
But your witness about "setup for inaction" -- there I'm with you. That's why we need a smaller executive government. But we didn't just elect a smaller-government-is-better kind of politician, so far as I hear. I suppose that's why you voted for McCain.
My main reasons for voting McCain were: Judicial restraint, respect for all human lives, a commander-in-chief that really knows war, and a chance that he'd actually clean up government a little. (I don't think the McCain-Feingold legislation helped at all, mind you. It regulates the wrong things.)
(By the way: Inaction on the congressional front can often be a good thing, although it's frustrating to all. Inaction in executive government--that partly stems from too much job security, I think. And red-tape from too much prior action by legislatures.)
RRG
8 comments:
Well we could argue on this one forever. I am not pro-choice but you can't legislate morality. There have been multiple studies that show abortions would continue to happen at the same rate with our without Roe. They happened before Roe and they would happen after Roe. From a constitution side Roe is a flawed law because it took rights of the states and brought them to DC, but having said that 7 Republican appointed justices have not overturned it and Chief Justice Roberts said it is the law of the land. We can put all our efforts and thoughts into trying to change something that will never (emphasis on never) be overturned or try to change things that the government can for our good. I have been in DC the last three years on the anniversary of the ruling and the wackos and nuts on the right do no justice to their cause. They do not have the ability to see both sides of the issue and put others (including me) in harms way. Some are violent, crude, and break law after law while the attend the rally. As far as being a follower of Christ, even God himself allowed (which makes choice a law in heaven) Satan to lead 1/3 of his children to an eternity of not being in his presence a far more lasting consequence than abortion which God can repair. And as a believer in the Book of Mormon I am sure you are aware the Christ visited Nephi the night before he was born so we do not have a definition of when life (the spirit and the body combined) begins. Otherwise that visit could not have occured. By the way you did not answer my post about the Contract with America, out of control spending by Republicans, the poorly (bordering on criminal) prosecution of the war, the $700 Billion bailout for their friends, the illegal alien fiasco and the list goes on and on. They deserved to loose.
Having said that politics change. If the Republicans get back to their Reagan heritage of controlled government, term limits, balanced budgets, capitalism (not socialism like the bailout), they will regain power as the the population base continues to move to the South and West. By the way there has only been two balanced budgets in the last 35 years and Bush gave the wealthy the tax breaks and ruined that. If they would have controlled spending and not given those tax cuts we would be debt free in two years.
I don't know if this is a private discussion or if anyone can join in. I've really enjoyed and appreciated reading both points of view. My one sticking point is the idea that you can't legislate morality. I disagree. I don't think abortion is an issue where there is an void of morals. It is either moral, or immoral. Doesn't abortion seem the moral option to those who are pro-choice? Why is it then that they can legislate their morals and it is fine, but when I want to, I am enforcing my beliefs on someone else? For whatever reason, we seem to labor under the assumption that we don't share consequences as a society, and that there are different rights and wrongs for everyone.
My other comment is about the idea that "multiple studies that show abortions would continue to happen at the same rate without Roe." Were there fortune tellers performing all these studies? How can anyone possibly know what will happen in the future? Are these studies somehow based on how many illegal abortions were performed in the days before Roe v Wade? I guess people don't consider that respondents to these studies might have something to gain by not being completely honest in their responses. No I don't live in fantasy land and I don't think Roe v Wade will be repealed. I would like to see a ban on partial birth abortion and I think in order for that to happen, there needs to be a conservative majority on the Supreme Court.
Wow, great blog Ryan! Whether or not anyone agrees with me, it is nice to get my opinion out there. Well done!
No I don't think its a private conversation. I am just trying to back Ryan the cliff. Let me give three examples about how you can't legislate morality.
1. The changing of the constitution to outlaw liquor. It did nothing except make it illegal and had to be repealed because there was no way to enforce the law. Another great example is Utah's stupid liquor laws. They don't stop consumption just make people mad because it is harder to get. It also prevents the state from make millions more in tourism. My kids see wine, beer, etc in the store and it does make them want to drink it. We choose not to partake but the choice is ours.
2. The war on drugs. Although drugs are illegal they are consumed daily in the US by thousands of people. The cost to society is that 57% of all inmates in the country are drug offenders. It also prevents taxes from being collected and is one of the leading causes of gangs and murders in the US.
3. The lack of marriage possibilities does not make gays not live together. They choose a lifestyle and nothing that we do can prevent it. Although I am against gay marriage I also know that millions continue to practice their lifestyle. Same thing for polygamists it is illegal to practice in the United States but thousands practice it because of their morality and religious beliefs.
About abortion if Roe was overturned the states then would have the rights to decide the outcome of abortion. So say you have a 50-50 split with states allowing abortion and those who do not. It may be more difficult to get a Legal abortion but it would be possible most likely in a neighboring state. Say Nevada, California, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, and Colorado in the west. The entire North East and the upper Midwest. Instead of going to buy the lotto tickets there would pop up just across state line abortion clinics. Also Mexico and Canada would continue to allow abortions. And illegal abortions would happen in any state that did not legalize that practice, putting womens lifes as risk.
And just one last comment all seven justices appointed by Republicans were thought to be conservative. As their careers have gone on they become more liberal, look at Stevens as a prime example. I am opposed to abortion but with the morals of the country believing in sex after one or two dates, living together, etc the only way to prevent them from happening is to prevent pregnancy from occurring. Another moral issue that can't be legislated.
Small government yes, conservative judges yes, but even they know you can't legislate morality.
Morals are defined as "modes of conduct." They are looked at as social conduct and a sense of right and wrong. My point is still that morality is being legislated, whether you agree with it or not. While it is against my sense of right to drink, it is not against someone else's. Therefore, the legality of drinking is someone's morals being legislated. Just not mine. It is the same with abortion, drugs, murder, stealing, lying, etc. I really don't see an absence of morals. The laws don't always fall in line with my morals, but they are someone's. To say you can't legislate morality is a fallacy. Someone's sense of right and wrong are legislated all the time. I just happen to think that many of the morals being legislated go against mine.
As for abortion, that is still someone's morals. If I were to really try to legislate MY morals, I would pass laws that would make men as responsible for their offspring as women are. I would stop treating abortion as a women's issue, or a choice issue, and would make it a societal issue. We all pay the price. Again, I know it isn't up to me and I'm not trying to repeal Roe v Wade. I would just like to see stronger bans on partial birth abortions.
Morality is legislated all the time. It is done by large and small governments, and by conservative and liberal legislators. It still seems to me that what you are saying is that MY morals can't be legislated. Well, I know that. All I have to do is look at the morals that are legislated. However, it doesn't mean that I have to like it and it REALLY doesn't mean that I can't still vote my conscience and be optimistic about the result.
Plus, it seems like the argument about why alcohol and drugs shouldn't be illegal is because people don't obey those laws. Did I really read that correctly? Should we really only make laws that people will obey? Or is it the monetary cost of enforcing laws? So who gets to decide which law gets what amount of money? Boy, that is a whole other can of worms. Instead of listing off the many laws that aren't obeyed, how about finding even one law that every American obeys and I guess, according to that rationale, that will be the law we keep. Or how about the cheapest to enforce? How much money goes into supporting death row inmates? Some could argue that is too much money so we should let them go free. People disobey traffic laws all the time and there doesn't seem to be enough money to enforce them. According to that argument, they should be repealed.
So really, all that argument has shown me is that the morals that are legislated need to be popular and have plenty of public support.
Steve,
You bring so many things up, that I can't possibly answer them all. And I didn't name my blog "right is right" in order to try to justify everything that every Republican majority ever took a position on. I'll put up a post explaining what I meant by my title sometime soon.
I agree with a lot of what you were saying that I didn't comment on. I'll comment on them later, if I keep it up.
Regarding the main theme of this comment thread: I think mostly, Steve, you're saying that it is not practical to legislate morality. And by that I believe you mean that it's impractical to try to enforce true principles.
Certainly some of the examples that you list are interesting ones: alcohol and drugs especially. Lots of history on these...seems like it could be a whole post, but I don't have forever to write. You may be correct that it is impractical to legislate some things, even though a successful job of legislating them would be good for everyone. So the next best thing is regulation, to thwart or compensate for as many negative effects of the "sin" as possible. The trouble with that, though, is the subsequent temptation that the state has to become a sponsor of the sin for the profit it brings in.
But I think Shanda has made some excellent points as well. Certainly law tries to find its base in morality.
Moving beyond that question, though..."Liberals" would like to see what they think is right legislated--but usually they can't get it done. So they've made a very successful practice of changing the pulic morality via a liberal Judiciary.
But abortion is not an impractical thing to legislate. Perhaps it has been done so in the past. And I don't feel like I'm on a cliff here. Abortion, I agree with my cousin John Sever, is a litmus test of our age, just as slavery was in the 19th century. It may have been impractical to legislate against slavery in 1850, but that didn't mean that you shouldn't have a position on it.
Ryan,
Just making you think. I know that I am not going to change your position but you are dead wrong on a number of fronts. In the past 40 years their have been 12 years of Democratic administrations. That means that the US has had a Republican President 70% of the time. Using that logic you should have about 70% of the judiciary appointed by Republicans meaning the courts have become more conservative. Seven versus two on the Supreme Court. Roe might not pass today in the Supreme Court but abortion still would be legal in at least 25 states and practiced in all 50 states.
Things change all the time. I think it the worst decision of all time is the interpretation of the commerce clause and how it changed the balance of government. I still think Senators should be appointed by their state legislature not elected by popular vote. The Senate was set up to represent the states interests not the peoples interests. Having said that neither will be overturned.
Remember the judiciary and the legislative bodies are reflections of how the majority think in the United States. I guess I will end with this statement because I actually have a day job and a night job. People from both sides will debate the abortion issue as a way to pump up their base, but the status quo is much easier to govern with. I will make this predication that Roe will never be overturned in my lifetime or my kids lifetime and is and will be the law of the land. I will also predicate it will not be part of the Republican platform in the next ten years or they will not be able to win another election. It will not be overturned until Christ returns. So I guess I choose to believe that the political system does not choose people morals and never will. I think you saw that first hand in the former Soviet Union. The state outlawed the practice of religion but people still believed and practiced in secret. Thats why I would never make overturning Roe a litmus test for office. There are to many pressing issues that the government can deal with including all that I mentioned in earlier posts as well as Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. Just a difference in philosophy and I respect your viewpoint even if I personally believe it is politically naive to vote for a candidate based on one or two main issues.
Post a Comment