A Nation United by A Constitution and Divided by A Supreme Court

by: task

Lately I’ve had a little trouble dealing with the language that conservatives have allowed themselves to become beleaguered by. It was George Herbert Walker Bush that gave us the Disability Act which showed the Country how compassionate conservatives could be and then, his son, with the help of Karl Rove decided to use the term “Compassionate Conservative” to distinguish conservatives from what? There are not two types of conservatism. The term should be “conservative compassion” because all conservatism is compassionate. Likewise conservatives often use the term “radical egalitarianism”, when they should say egalitarian radicalism because all egalitarianism is radical.

Prochoice (pro choice) is not about choice; it is about death; it is pro death. Last time I looked the United States Constitution, as originally written, mentioned nothing about slavery and even today, after many Amendments, mentions nothing about abortion. Does that mean that the post Civil War Amendments were necessary to abolish slavery or else it would be a States Right’s 10th Amendment issue. Not exactly because slaves were, as incredible as it might seem today, considered property and property was so sacrosanct that it essentially was the basis behind the entire Constitution. Your life belongs to you and it represents the ultimate property that you own. You clearly own the deed to yourself. Likewise, abortion was never mentioned. Does that mean that it was subject to the Ninth Amendment and that you could, if you wished, destroy your own premature progeny? Till this day, with the help of Supreme Court precedent, it appears that you can do what you wish with your own body, and the life within it, as a right, which is penultimate only to the 13th Amendment. That precedent legally trumps the very life that we all, at one time, once were and makes such precedent constitutional.

Is that how the Framers envisioned this. They may have gotten slavery wrong until we clearly established what the Declaration and Constitution always said. Black people were not chattel; they are human beings and that realization ultimately changed everything. That did not require any science, only reason, yet despite incredible scientific advancements since our Constitution was ratified we persist to go in the wrong direction when it comes to life before birth. It was once clearly understood that although you could do what you wished to yourself, the property within you, was designed by natural law and societal law to be protected. It was always considered life and the life of the mother; had at most equal but no greater value than the life which she carried.  As stated at the time of Independence: “With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger”. Today, using ultrasounds and uterine cameras, we know that evidence of life, such as a beating heart, is well established before a baby begins to stir and I have no doubt that, considering the morality during the late 18th century, had our Founders had such technology available they would have considered life to be dignified and untouchable even far earlier, if not immediately after conception.

When it comes to language I describe prochoice people as fanatical. If you think otherwise then just imagine what partial birth represents. The infant is dissected within the uterus so that he/she is partially extracted or born, in pieces, before the skull is pierced and the brain sucked out. Some doctors would prefer a full delivery before the murder. Would any veterinarian facilitate such procedures? Slaughterhouses would be shut down based upon such practices.

Of the 57 or so million abortions since Roe vs. Wade more than one-tenth were promulgated by Planned Parenthood. Overall about one-third of those babies were black which, by itself, is a rather startling number considering that the American black population is roughly 8% of the entire US population. If you think the last Super Bowl event was crowded imagine that the number of American abortions since 1973 would have filled over 800 such Super Bowel stadiums. That amount is over one-sixth of the entire current US population or more than one-third of the total war casualties during the entire 20th century. It is roughly ten times the number lost during the Holocaust.

What Party considers Roe v Wade a monumental Supreme Court decision? That would be the Party of American Slavery, which fought against American Constitutional civil rights as late as 1964. That would be the party that proudly boasts over the money it has spent defeating the HIV, RNA virus worldwide (certainly by itself a laudable achievement) yet tens of millions more people could be saved by targeted use of DDT costing but a mere few thousand dollars.

Roe v Wade is compared to a Constitutional victory whereby property rights of one individual are so paramount that it becomes permissible to establish the ultimate negative right for innocent abortion victims, which is death, based upon an incredible premise that life within the womb is not life until it is no longer protected by a little abdominal skin and muscle. A while back I considered writing an article about how Copernicus was wrong and that the earth really is the center of the universe or another article where I describe that the earth, along with all spherical objects within the universe were really flat before they became round. I’m sure some readers could be made to believe such irrationality, especially if it appeared in the NY Times but nowhere near the number that today still accept the idea that what we see with a uterine camera and with the technology of even the earliest sonograms is still not sufficient proof that we are killing human life. It has been said Republicans should stay away from social issues. Even if that were true concerning abortion, because it emphasizes and supports human death over human life it is not a social issue. It is a Constitutional one. Property rights represent the basis of all rights and the one that is most supreme is the property that is your own life. Only progressives, who never have difficulty violating every other property right, would find it fitting to defend the right of a women to do what she wishes with her own body as the only property right that must be fiercely and vociferously defended. But in the world of progressives and liberals that makes perfect sense. A mentality that has a 100% track record of getting every other constitutional concept wrong would not be likely to actually get something right that is as simple as this. They have been on the wrong side of he Constitution, morality, logic and reason for so long how can we now expect them to blemish their otherwise perfect tract record?