I was not at all surprised to hear that Rudy Giuliani has lately expressed views that welcome the rising prominence of Sarah Palin in the GOP. Giuliani is the archetype of the politicians who wear the Republican label but staunchly support the pro-abortion agenda. Of course, he imitates the pro-abortion Democrats by using the "pro-choice" label to dress his position in deceptively American garb. The use of that term is one of the most clever rhetorical ploys in the history of American politics. If the slaveholders had thought of it, people like me might still be doing stoop labor for no wages. After all, what could be more American than choice? Isn't that what freedom is all about?
Actually, no; not in the sense of the political liberty the American people have up to now enjoyed. Our liberty is based on the idea of unalienable rights articulated to justify our nation's assertion of independence from Great Britain. "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."
Unalienable rights give rise to opportunities for choice, but in a context that first takes account of the standard of justice from which the claim of right derives. Human life involves certain actions and inclinations that, as a rule, tend to support and preserve it, both for individuals and for the species as a whole. This rule is the result of determinations made by their Creator, whose will thus constitutes the standard for their actions. As they accept the gift of life and perform the actions necessary to sustain it, their respect for the Creator's rule sets the standard for their action. Right action preserves and perpetuates human life. Wrong action damages and destroys it. People are in the right when they act rightly. Should others, without cause or provocation, seek to interfere with their action, they have the right to resist and to defend themselves against that interference.
The concept of unalienable rights thus arises from respect for the rule of the Creator. People acting rightly (i.e., in conformity with the rule) act on the Creator's authority. They may use in defense of their actions whatever powers they possess in consequence of that authority. Their physical, mental and emotional capacities may all be brought to bear to enforce (that is continue with) their right action. These capacities include the ability to discern and choose among different courses of action that achieve the desired result. As they do so, they have a right connected with and arising from their respect for the Creator's rule.
In and of itself, therefore, choice is not a "right". Rather it is a consequence of the conformity to right. Yet the capacity for choice is part of human nature, which is to say the way human beings have been fashioned by the Creator. People have the capacity for choice. But they only have the right to do as they choose when they have used that capacity in accordance with the Creator's rule. Put simply, their choice does not involve a right when what they choose to do is fundamentally wrong.
Government exists because God made humanity with the capacity to do wrong, i.e., envisage and set our sights on a different course than the one that is, on the whole, compatible with the possibility of human existence. In light of this capacity, the purpose of government is to limit and/ or repulse the effective action of wrongdoers, thereby securing the rights (i.e., right courses of action) of those who respect the Creator's will.
This logic is the basis in principle for the pro-life rejection of the superficially potent argument that a woman may do as she chooses when it comes to taking the life of the child in her womb. Her freedom to choose does not extend to violating the Creator's demand of respect for the child's unalienable right to life. God's demand of justice limits individual choice. But it also limits how those entrusted with the powers of government may legitimately (i.e., lawfully) employ them. This is the substantive basis for the concept of limited government. The limitation does not arise from ideological whim, or from social or historical circumstances. It arises from the same determination of the Creator's will that sets the stars on fire and the courses in which planets revolve around them.
Just as the individual's choice is limited by the Creator's determination of what harmonizes with the possibility of human existence, so the use of the powers of government is limited to actions compatible with the aim of securing the unalienable rights of human nature (i.e., those connected with actions and inclinations compatible with the decisions of the Creator that make our existence possible.) No government (including the State governments of the United States) may, in law or action, justly depart from this aim by violating or tolerating the violation of the unalienable rights of anyone subject to its jurisdiction.
Sarah Palin appears to be pro-choice for State governments. (I invite readers to review the arguments I have made in this regard in Sarah Palin: Already Compromised? and Palin's Choice: an Afterword) Yet just as the principle of unalienable right places a limit on the individual choice of the mother it also limits the choice of the community of individuals (civil society) acting by means of the State governments. Except for the just demands of that principle, the intimate, personal consequences of the decision about pregnancy would favor giving moral priority to the mother's choice, not that of State legislators otherwise unaffected by its result. Herein lies the grave danger connected with identifying 'pro-choice for States' politicians as acceptable champions of the pro-life cause. They step away from the solid ground of principle provided by the Declaration of Independence reliance upon unalienable rights. By doing so, they set the stage for the ultimate defeat of the pro-life position. Sadly this also undermines the argument that the consent of the governed is the sine qua non of governmental legitimacy (lawfulness). For unless it respects requirements of right action, government based upon consent contradicts the Creator's rule, and so cuts the ground out from under the just demand it claims to represent.
Actually, no; not in the sense of the political liberty the American people have up to now enjoyed. Our liberty is based on the idea of unalienable rights articulated to justify our nation's assertion of independence from Great Britain. "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."
Unalienable rights give rise to opportunities for choice, but in a context that first takes account of the standard of justice from which the claim of right derives. Human life involves certain actions and inclinations that, as a rule, tend to support and preserve it, both for individuals and for the species as a whole. This rule is the result of determinations made by their Creator, whose will thus constitutes the standard for their actions. As they accept the gift of life and perform the actions necessary to sustain it, their respect for the Creator's rule sets the standard for their action. Right action preserves and perpetuates human life. Wrong action damages and destroys it. People are in the right when they act rightly. Should others, without cause or provocation, seek to interfere with their action, they have the right to resist and to defend themselves against that interference.
The concept of unalienable rights thus arises from respect for the rule of the Creator. People acting rightly (i.e., in conformity with the rule) act on the Creator's authority. They may use in defense of their actions whatever powers they possess in consequence of that authority. Their physical, mental and emotional capacities may all be brought to bear to enforce (that is continue with) their right action. These capacities include the ability to discern and choose among different courses of action that achieve the desired result. As they do so, they have a right connected with and arising from their respect for the Creator's rule.
In and of itself, therefore, choice is not a "right". Rather it is a consequence of the conformity to right. Yet the capacity for choice is part of human nature, which is to say the way human beings have been fashioned by the Creator. People have the capacity for choice. But they only have the right to do as they choose when they have used that capacity in accordance with the Creator's rule. Put simply, their choice does not involve a right when what they choose to do is fundamentally wrong.
Government exists because God made humanity with the capacity to do wrong, i.e., envisage and set our sights on a different course than the one that is, on the whole, compatible with the possibility of human existence. In light of this capacity, the purpose of government is to limit and/ or repulse the effective action of wrongdoers, thereby securing the rights (i.e., right courses of action) of those who respect the Creator's will.
This logic is the basis in principle for the pro-life rejection of the superficially potent argument that a woman may do as she chooses when it comes to taking the life of the child in her womb. Her freedom to choose does not extend to violating the Creator's demand of respect for the child's unalienable right to life. God's demand of justice limits individual choice. But it also limits how those entrusted with the powers of government may legitimately (i.e., lawfully) employ them. This is the substantive basis for the concept of limited government. The limitation does not arise from ideological whim, or from social or historical circumstances. It arises from the same determination of the Creator's will that sets the stars on fire and the courses in which planets revolve around them.
Just as the individual's choice is limited by the Creator's determination of what harmonizes with the possibility of human existence, so the use of the powers of government is limited to actions compatible with the aim of securing the unalienable rights of human nature (i.e., those connected with actions and inclinations compatible with the decisions of the Creator that make our existence possible.) No government (including the State governments of the United States) may, in law or action, justly depart from this aim by violating or tolerating the violation of the unalienable rights of anyone subject to its jurisdiction.
Sarah Palin appears to be pro-choice for State governments. (I invite readers to review the arguments I have made in this regard in Sarah Palin: Already Compromised? and Palin's Choice: an Afterword) Yet just as the principle of unalienable right places a limit on the individual choice of the mother it also limits the choice of the community of individuals (civil society) acting by means of the State governments. Except for the just demands of that principle, the intimate, personal consequences of the decision about pregnancy would favor giving moral priority to the mother's choice, not that of State legislators otherwise unaffected by its result. Herein lies the grave danger connected with identifying 'pro-choice for States' politicians as acceptable champions of the pro-life cause. They step away from the solid ground of principle provided by the Declaration of Independence reliance upon unalienable rights. By doing so, they set the stage for the ultimate defeat of the pro-life position. Sadly this also undermines the argument that the consent of the governed is the sine qua non of governmental legitimacy (lawfulness). For unless it respects requirements of right action, government based upon consent contradicts the Creator's rule, and so cuts the ground out from under the just demand it claims to represent.
Posts
5 comments:
How is Sarah Palin, or any "republican leader" supposed to not only overturn Roe V Wade, but FORCE the court to rule that abortion is illegal under our constitution??
The only workable strategy is to make our case for overturning Roe, while working for a constitutional amendment making abortion illegal.
Only an amendment will overrule the men in black.
OK. Some very good points have been made. I believe the bottom line is this: a morally bankrupt, constitutionally illiterate electorate being responsible for this mess.
Recall it was the Supreme Court who struck down "state" laws forbidding abortion. As John Lofton says, "The Supreme Court doesn't make law." But they sure did strike down constitutionally valid laws. And we have gone along with it. We have ignored their usurpation. (Much like their abuse of Eminent Domain.)Perhaps that's why emphasis has been placed on the federal level.
Certainly, in a legalistic sense (no small matter), the issue belongs to the respective states. Unfortunately, those of us experienced with the nuance of politicians, we've come to expect a shifting of responsibilities. A soft approach. Rhetoric is not followed by action.
Again, I harken back to slavery. From a States Rights perspective, the Constitution doesn't give the Federal government any say on the issue, one way or the other. Should the states have the right to decide for themselves? Or through their belligerence, will it not necessitate action at a level that can ensure protection for those who can't protect themselves?
I understand the need to keep power from a centralized entity. But again, it's also an issue of rhetoric. Can something so heinous truly belong to the province of a lesser authority? Instead of making it an issue for the states, how about focusing the talking points on the matter at hand - the babies.
"Only an amendment will overrule the men in black."
I would replace "only" with "not even". But the passing of time and a series of Presidents sufficiently convinced of the need to limit Judicial overreach can change the court, one Justice at a time (with the 'advice and consent' of the Senate). That's a significant part of why the understanding of the Constitution that any potential candidate for President (or Senator) brings to the office does matter.
I agree with that interpretation which attempts to restrict the national government to actions of a Federal nature, that is, the regulation of what the states may do with respect to each other, other nations, and "the people" (understood as a sovereign entity composed of individual human beings). And I believe that interpretation consistent with an effort to undo most of the disastrous abrogations of the Constitution which have brought America to its untenable situation.
It is well and good to get people worked up about protecting innocent life. But, inevitably, protecting the innocent is accomplished by finding and restraining the guilty. Essentially, this is the best that even a perfect government can ever be expected to do. So, the particulars of how you determine guilt, and this certainly includes the matter of exactly who does the actual determining, is not a trivial point.
The American founders believed, and I agree, that human beings are best qualified to carry out this function in relation to members of their own community. History tends to bear out this view...but whether or not it did, to dispense with this view is to part all company with the entire design of the Constitution. If you honestly believe that the Constitution is fundamentally unsound in its most basic premise, then we have nothing more to discuss, because I am solemnly sworn to defend what you are philosophically determined to overthrow.
However, I profoundly doubt that this is the case. I think that it is more likely that the pro-abortion movement has been profoundly successful in their efforts to convince everyone that opposition to abortion is innately tyrannical. You have merely been deluded into believing that you face a choice between embracing tyranny and tolerating gross evil. I say that it is tyranny which has been used in support of the evil, and opposition to that tyranny is therefor opposition to the evil it supports.
But whichever you believe, when the question does turn to 'belligerence', be sure that you act in defense. This does matter. Aggression is fine in sports and courts, but when lives are at stake it is the defender who is granted clemency before the Judgment bar of Almighty God. Well, I hardly claim to be worthy of such a thing myself, but you might want to look into it.
The belligerence referrenced was in the context of the Southern States' desire to hold fast to that wicked institution. In no way was I suggesting all out war. Afterall, the attack on Ft. Sumpter precipitated that great carnage. The law (legislation) and reason, in time, would have resolved the issue. For those who were not suffering, time was on their side.
Additionally, the founders also believed in the primacy of God. These communities must be subservient to the laws of Nature and of nature's God; else we end up on our present path.
One other clarification: I am not determined to overthrow the system of governance sometimes referred to as our Representative Republic. On the contrary, I wish to see a return to the original principles and its practice as originally envisaged. It is good to see you, too, have sworn a solemn oath in defense of that beloved document. While my oath was taken over 30 years ago, I still consider it valid and necessary. You seem to be in an "active" state pursuant to yours.
You appear to revere constitutional law, irrespective of aforementioned differences in its practical application. Would you mind telling us whether or not you are a member of "Oathkeepers"? It might help in determining what "laws" you are eager to defend, and perhaps give a clue as to whether you would "follow orders". Afterall, both North and South had their eager acolytes.
Well, currently I don't take orders so much as suggestions (I'm still working on understanding the distinction). In that sense my oath to defend the Constitution is almost a private...eccentricity. Since I don't put much trust in the suggestions of those who don't respect the Constitution, and do not regard as valid any laws imposed or enforced contrary to it, the issue doesn't come up much anymore.
I believe the Constitution to be worthy of special respect because it was framed and ratified with the literal assistance of God ('Providence', 'Divine Law', or whatever you wish to call it). As an evil and degenerate aesthete, I adore God more for His surpassing and infinite power, glory, and beauty than for His goodness, but adoration it still is. As much as any scripture, the Constitution reveals those supernal characteristics of Deity in its original author.
I do not deny by this that the importunities of men have marred the transmission of God's pure intention, this happens with all scripture when humans undertake to record in their own imperfect idiom what has been revealed to them. Contrary to what Islam claims, God's will cannot be perfectly expressed in any mortal tongue. But I do not use the presence of flaws to deny the provenance.
Well, as for the principle of acting in defense rather than offense, it is attested in the Constitution as well as other scriptures and in the implicit revelation of natural law. I'm innately predatory (as well as evil), so perhaps I cannot serve as a perfect example of obedience in this (or much else, really). Still, I think it worth mentioning as the conflict escalates towards its logical conclusion. Prepare to defend yourselves, associate together and gather your common resources. This is prudent and just. But do not be the first to resort to violence.
If someone punches you in the face, punch him (gendered pronoun used intentionally) back (even if you're much stronger and were prudently wearing a helmet). Some might claim that God does not justify this, but He is clearly willing to at least forgive it. The case of those who attack first without explicit provocation is far less certain. That someone is prepared to survive and respond to an attack is not only no justification, but I rather think it adds the sin of willful stupidity to the balance of guilt.
Of course, men will argue endlessly over who really struck the first blow. But it is better to have the facts on your side, particularly when it's time to face the ultimate judge.
Post a Comment