Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Why is Roe v. Wade so important

Danny Carlton blogged I know why I think it's important and why other pro-lifers think it's important, but why do the pro-choice crowd make it such a big issue. The Alito confirmation is supposedly hinging on that one issue. Why?

Because Roe is the most visible example where Judicial Activism established a "Law" that the Democrats could not have gotten passed through the House and the Senate even when they controlled both houses. If Roe is reversed, not only will the abortion industry (a major donor to Democratic candidates) disappear, but people may begin challenging other examples of Judicial Activism.
As in most case there's the given reason, then there's the real reason.

I remember hearing a story several years back about a church that built a new building. the pastor wanted the parking lot paved, but the deacons, and most of the members didn't want to have to pay the extra for it, and felt a gravel parking lot would work just fine. So it was decided to have a gravel parking lot. Then came the question of size. For some odd reason the pastor was adamant about the size of the parking lot, insisting that it was very important that it accommodate at least a certain amount of cars. The added expense of have a slightly large parking lot wasn't all that much, besides the pastor had been voted down on the paving thing, so the deacons and the church members agreed to the size. But—once the building and the parking lot were finished they got a surprise—well, all but the pastor. It turns out that the zoning laws were very specific that parking lots larger than a certain size must be paved, and once the land was covered with gravel, and the gravel pressed, it was parking space. It was either pave the parking lot or pay a hefty fine. The pastor was the only one who'd bothered to study the zoning laws. His real reason for insisting on a specific size for the parking lot became clear.
So why Roe v. Wade? We know the given reason, that it supposedly about a woman's choice, yet we see the pro-choicers throw fits when laws are enacted to prevent minors from being forced into abortions. How is that pro-choice? We see them throw fits when anyone is educated about alternatives to abortion. We see them throw fits even when a license plate that says "Choose Life" is offered. So obvious, while "choice" is the given reason, it's not the real reason.
They don't even support people from having a choice, unless it is on something they approve of. I am Pro Life, but I am also Pro Choice:
  1. I favor allowing parents to have a choice as to what school to send their children to, and if the government is going to set appropriate $X to educate Y children in the public school system, I believe that $x/y dollars should go to the school the parents choose, regardless of whether it is a public, religious, or private school
  2. I believe that every homeowner should have a choice whether or not to buy a gun to protect his life and his property
  3. I support tax cuts, because I believe that the individual can make a better choice of where his money should be spent than the government.
  4. I do not like the idea of a government dictating what must be said, but I believe that if a school district, or school, or even a teacher makes a choice to do so, he/she should be free to lead his/her class in a prayer at the start of the day.
  5. I believe that if a science teacher is presented with text books reflecting the Secular Humanist religion's view of how life on Earth began, he/she should have a choice to also mention alternative theories, including the story of Creation as stated in Genesis, or the concept that there was an Intelligent Designer in control of the process.
Abortion is a water-shed issue. On one side you have those that see life as a something sacred, special. It's sort of like that tag on the mattress. A higher authority has deemed it cannot be removed, so we fear to touch it. Ironically some people who leave those tags on their mattress will insist on the right to murder babies in the womb and old and infirm people in hospices. They're one the other side. They see life as just another thing in a universe void of absolutes.
As an example of the lack of absolutes in their position, many of them oppose the death penalty, where slightly over 1,000 have been executed since the Supreme Court restored the possibility of the Death Penalty, when the condemned has had a trial by a jury of his peers, and numerous state and federal appeals, and yet they support the killing of over 3,000 babies every day, without any sort of judicial hearing, much less a jury trial, and without any opportunity for even a single appeal.
And that's the linchpin. If there are no absolutes, then the inconvenience of pregnancy can be ended without the guilt of murder. But if there are absolutes, life itself would logically be the primary absolute.

It's not abortion the Liberals fight against—it's God Himself. They want no authority higher than the one they create themselves, and abortion allows them to maintain that charade. It's their way of shaking their fist at God and saying, "See you're not so tough, watch us murder babies!!" If we allow anyone, anywhere to put any kind of limits on the ability to slaughter babies in the womb, it allows an inkling of recognition that something exists which is more powerful than the Liberal's myth of the utopian state. That, they must not ever allow.

And so the central issue in the confirmation of then next Justice of the US Supreme Court is whether he will allow the ruling that babies can be murdered anywhere for any reason, to stand. Do we recognize an authority above our own or not?

Hyscience blogged In Sunday's SF Gate there's an interesting statement:
(...) From the pro-choice point of view, pro-choice makes sense, that is: 'If you believe that a life is being taken here, don't have an abortion, but do not impose your view of this on the rest of us,'

(...) From a pro-life point of view, if you're clear that this is a life, then what the pro-choice person has said to you is the exact equivalent of, 'If you have a problem with murder, don't do it -- it just has to be legal for other people who want to do it.'
Certainly one has to ask how is it that a sentient being can so callously place freedom to choose on such a lofty plain while ignoring the murder of an innocent alive and well but yet unborn child!

Even if Roe is overturned that would just return the matter to the states. In the SF Gate article he referred to, they suggest that there 22 are states that are highly likely to ban abortion: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin, there are 9 moderately likely to ban abortion: Arizona, District of Columbia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania, and there are 21 most likely to protect abortion: Alaska, California, Connecticutt, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming. If you were wondering, as I was, why there were 52 "states", including the District of Columbia, it is because they can't decide what Rhode Island will do. It is listed as Highly likely to ban abortion and Most likely to protect abortion (I guess it is too small for the people to make up their minds).

No comments: