Barack Obama may be predisposed to commit fewer war crimes than his predecessor, though we must express such hopes with due caution if not downright skepticism, but one area on which he has turned the tables in the Murder-by-State department is abortion.
Obama has promised to push for the passage of FOCA, the Freedom of Choice Act, which among other things would force many healthcare providers to face the choice between performing procedures they find morally reprehensible, or shutting their doors. So much for freedom. This sounds to me like coercion, and, as usual, it is brought to you by the State.
But it doesn’t stop here. Obama has already reversed the Mexico City policy, which under the W. Administration prohibited U.S. funds from going overseas to assist in the procurement of abortions. Bush’s policy would seem to be the sensible one, for why should my tax dollars provide for a procedure which I find to be abhorent, either in a foreign country, or here at home? Why should tax dollars support any ill-advised jaunt (such as the invasion of Iraq) that is morally controversial? (Moreover, why should there be taxes, or the State, period….but I digress…)
Many would perhaps not want to admit it, but the key issue here is one of forcing American citizens to violate their consciences. Perhaps this is a good sword to fall on, just the place to begin in the long battle against tyranny, for Ron Paul warned a year ago already that many of us would soon be facing tough choices and would have to decide if we were willing to commit civil disobedience.
The issue of abortion is a difficult one. By saying that I do not mean to imply that I think the morality of it is hard to sort out. It is difficult because it is hot, and sound reason is getting lost in the heat. When I was a Statist (God forgive me!), I used to advocate a Constitutionalist approach: Simply have Congress revoke this issue from the jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. In all the years of Republican control of Congress, this option was never taken seriously, in spite of the fact that such bills were introduced. This is one of the reasons that I don’t take the GOP seriously on this issue.
Many more, however, advocate a change in the make-up of the Supreme Court. Good luck with that. This is impossible to predict, and even with a pro-life president, even the best nominee is no better than a roll of the dice. Besides, Article III, Section 2, and all that.
The real problem with trying to solve this through Constitutional means is that the Constitution really doesn’t matter anyway. If it is true that the Lone Ranger President actually called it “just a G*ddamn piece of paper,” then, well, he’s right, and history proves him right. The government has massaged, and even rended, the Constitution to get whatever it wants. Why should it be any different with this issue?
The problem with the issue of abortion is that it would seem that civil law would be ineffective at truly preventing it from happening—as is the case with civil law so much of the time. Yet, if there were to be no secular protection for the life of the unborn, who would be the defenders of the victims of abortion? The best solution in the Statist milieu, it would seem, would be local laws that were enforceable. Repeat: this is within the Statist milieu. (I’m dealing with present realities, for a change, but only for one paragraph. You needn’t worry.)
Would it be better, however, for various religious institutions to institute their own penalties for this crime? That has its own problems, not the least of which is that someone without religious affiliation would be unaccountable to anyone. Maybe the private common law courts that would be used in the anarcho-capitalist system envisioned by Murray Rothbard could be used to avenge the killing of the unborn.
Incidendentally, I do not accept Rothbard’s idea that the unborn child, being a parasite of its mother, does not have any rights. It is the foetus’ parasitical nature which leads Rothbard to this conclusion that the unborn is really just property of the mother. The implications of this, however, are ghastly. What, then, about the nursing infant? What about the mentally handicapped or deranged young adult? What about the elderly, and those considered to be in “vegetative states”? If being “parasitical” voids one’s rights, then most of our lives would be in danger at one point or another.
What is more, Rothbard really didn’t need to view the unborn as a parasite in order to keep his ethic of liberty consistent. All one need do is define the unborn life as one belonging to itself, with all the rights that the rest of us have, and there is no problem of consistency.
Of course, that’s ultimately the rub, isn’t it? In the final analysis, one’s views on abortion are not so much influenced by what one thinks the Constitution does or does not say, or by whether or not one is a Democan, Republikrat, libertarian, or anarchist. It comes down to what one thinks a foetus is. After all, if one believes that it is a life, then consistency requires that we stand up for its rights, and if one believes that it is not its own life, then that opens the door to toleration of, or even downright acceptance of, abortion.
We won’t all agree on this subject, and we might even disagree vehemently. And that is the number one reason why the State should keep its grubby mitts out of the abortion industry.
Help to put an end to abortion by putting an end to the State.
Filed under: anarchism, Barack Obama, civil liberties, Constitution, natural rights, politics | Tagged: abortion, Barack Obama | 3 Comments »