a fetus is a human being. That is not a moral opinion, or a immoral opinion, or a scientific opinion. Opinion, it is not.
Blacks were meant to be slaves. Its a Fact. Just ask a Southern slaveowner
Jews are Evil. Its a Fact. Just ask Hitler.
Jesus wanted the Government to provide Charity. Its a Fact. Just Ask Obama.
Catastrophic Global warming will kill us all. Its a fact. Just ask Al Gore.
The Sun goes round the earth. Its a Fact. Just ask Pope Urban VIII.
All human knowledge is a based on opinion. "Facts" exist in in the external empirical world -
but you have NEVER even seen that world ( your retina does lots of image processing even before the signal is sent to your brain) All of the information you have is perceived and processed by a human brain, and therefore prone to errors of interpretation. As a result, no one can be said to be in possession of the "facts." That is why the
inalienable right of conscience is so important. People need to be free to consider the evidence and make up their own minds. To say otherwise is to justify all the evil that has been done by people who declare a fact then then proceed to act using force against others. When there is no human consensus on "the facts", freedom must become our guide. Even when there is a consensus, as in Hitler's germany, or in Galileo's Church, there is no guarantee that the "Facts" agreed to will be "facts" in the empirical, real world sense.
In our great country, our Constitution protects our life. We have the 'right' to life. It is not a privilege and it is not based on a moral opinion.
Of course a Fetus has a right to life. It is as self-evident as any other statement in the Declaration. Likewise, Blacks were free men before the Constitution was amendended to recognize them as such. But why did we need an Amendment? Because there was no consensus on the "facts" and therefore no consent to a government that had the power to abolish the practice of slavery. That is why there are such compromises as the 3/5s clause. It is not a document based on moral Law, inalienable rights, or religious doctrine.. The Constitution and the legitimacy of the government it creates is based solely on consent, and as such the Constitution and Amendments mean what they meant to the people who consented to them. Can you provide one shred of evidence from history that anything in the Constitution was understood by those who ratified it that any of those provisions apply to a fetus? If not, then consent to that interpretation was not given , and the Constitution is silent on the subject. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I think it's important to note that we don't serve the constitution for the sake of the constitution. We serve the constitution for the sake of the people whose rights it guarantees.
And Obama feels the same way. That same argument justifies his imposition of Obamacare, The Great Society, FDRs New Deal, Roe Vs Wade, and every other change the liberals have made to our constitutional laws. Every liberal will tell you that the constitution must change for the sake of the people who are governed by it. We either follow our agreement or we don't. If we agree that the Constitution is meaningless, and is trumped any time we feel strongly about something, we may as well end the experiment now and just admit humans are incapable of Constitutional government, and therefore there is no point in having a constitution. Whatever you can get away with in the current process (however conducted) is considered just and right, because might makes right. Talk of inalienable rights, limited powers, and personal freedom is then just that- Talk.
I don't think liberals took over schools, churches, and media before they used government as a tool for implementing the changes they seek. They took their political and judicial advances in the war as they could win them, regardless of where they happened to be in the culture war at the time.When it suited their needs, such as in Roe, they changed the law first, and forced the culture to accept it, and eventually embrace it.
No doubt they took political advantages when they came, but as a general rule political support only comes AFTER cultural support. (Judges come first because political support isn't as important- but those judges were "educated" somewhere) Betty Friedan wrote the Feminine Mystique in 1963, and there was already support for Abortion before the court decision. Roe V. wade was decided in 1973. The liberal assault on public schools occurred in the 1880-90s, and 20-30 years later we had the decadent roaring 20s, and an electorate so willing to reform America they passed 6 amendments between 1913 and 1933 including prohibition, income tax and the popular election of senators. FDR and the New Deal? Right up the reformer's alley.. The Free love 60s came before we got Johnson and the Great Society. If you do anything too unpopular before the general populace is ready for it, then you are thrown out on your ear. The fact that they never waited for supermajority support , or obeyed the Constitution in any way is exactly the point, and why they were and are tyrants and despots. And the solution I am hearing is that we must also become tyrants and despots, and thereby loose any legitimacy that we might have had under our agreement and concede the that Constitution is meaningless in our affairs going forward, except as an occasional prop to justify what we were going to do anyway. You seems to propose saving the Constitution by destroying its very meaning and significance. I suppose one could argue that we will "restore" it later, but history shows such a promise is seldom kept, and since right now less than half the people even understand the principles behind it, the idea will be lost forever.
Jefferson's quote is meaningful to me in this discussion:
[blockquote]A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.[/blockquote]
If you take the
quote in context he is talking about armed conflicts. And if we find ourselves in one of those, then the Constitution is already moot and void, because we are seeking extra-constitutional measure to rectify our grievances. If extra-constitutional methods are required, why should play at the enemy's game of being tyrants and despots using the government as a weapon, if indeed killing them in their beds is the right remedy. If extra-constitutional measures are called for, it would seem using methods that DON'T destroy the entire meaning and purpose of the document, and call into question the legitimacy of the system, may be best. If we must fight a war, then by all means let us impose our wills when we become the victors, but lets not fight that war using the enemy's tools. They will corrupt us, as power always corrupts all men.
Some things just seem contradictory. [ETA- We should give in because they will fight?]
Sometimes it is necessary to lose a battle to win the war. And once you win, you can return to that battlefield and reassert your superiority over it. . The first objective is pushing the government back out of our Lives, our Families , our homes and our decisions, so that we can freely enjoy and display the cultural attributes we desire and feel are right. We need to be free to say our minds without fear of reprisal from a PC HR department. We need to be free to preach and practice our religion in the public square. We need to be free to teach our children according to our beliefs and values. We need to be free to publish, make movies, and influence public discussion. We need to be free to define and keep our own vows to each other. We need to be free to make the decisions for the pursuit of our own happiness. We are not fighting for "the culture" we are fighting to retain our own culture, against on onslaught of another different, separate, and entirely incompatible, barbarian culture.
These social issues, such as Gay Marriage and Abortion, are direct attacks on that other culture- They are about the enemy's lives, families and homes, and decisions. It is not our babies they kill, but theirs. It is not our souls they soil, but theirs. If the barbarian enemy want to kill their own babies - let them - as long as they do it with their own money, and in their own communities and outside our gates.
WE must protect our own houses, our own lives, our own families , our own decisions and our own culture from attack first. If our culture is so valuable, then it needs to be protected, - here and at home, before any counter attack on them can be waged. We are dealing with uncivilized barbarians, and our first priority should be getting them back outside the gates. Screaming about how we plan to attack their homes, and their decisions will only make them fight all the harder. Let them think they have a safe place to retreat to, and they will be more likely to go there in the face of our push to get them the hell out of our lives. And once that is secure, THEN after growing and consolidating our forces, they will see our propserity and beg to be let in.
But say we do push on on both fronts. Say we succeed in forcing them to live according to our cultural values using the Government to make it so, as they have tried to do with us. All we have done is reinforced THEIR cultural principle that the government has the right to be in our houses and in our heads. We have reaffirmed that Might makes Right. We have traded an eye for an eye, and taught the barbarians nothing of civilized life, so they WILL CONTINUE to be barbarians coddling their grievances till they get their chance at revenge. Or so say the last 6000 years of human history.
Cultures are tribal in nature - they gain strength one individual at a time - dependant upon what that individual sees as "normal" and what values they identify with. Our culture is superior. We know that. That is why the Frankfurt school invented "critical theory" - they wanted to attack our culture and make individuals loose faith in its superiority. But they had nothing superior to offer - they were just trying to inhibit the expression of our ideals and beliefs, in words and actions. If we can remove the blocks, and again have the freedom to engage in it without interference, our culture WILL be come dominant, one person at a time, because it offers superior results. Or perhaps I am one of the few people left with that sort of faith in my culture? I think China has NEVER been really conquered for this reason. The conquerors always end up becoming culturally Chinese. It simply never occurs to the Chinese that anyone would want to be anything else.
Obviously folks here disagree. It seems most want a two front politcal war fought under a complete compromise of principles, providing built-in vigor and motivation to the enemy to fight us on both fronts , when they would be less inclined to fight us on a single front where all of our resources could be brought to bear, and all while dividing and alienating those within our own ranks.
Who am I to argue?
Think I will get back to prepping. Now where did I leave that Dead Horse? Oh, here it is.
.
