Jon's Blog

Libertarians and abortion

Many Libertarians think that abortion should be legal because a government doesn't have any business "imposing morality" on its citizens. Neal Boortz caught flak for being a "Christian basher" when he espoused this view on his radio show some time ago. To Mr. Boortz, and others who share his opinion on abortion: I don't think you're Christian-bashing; I think you've forgotten what our founding documents say!

To wit: "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 -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men..." (the Declaration of Independence)

The fundamental function of the United States government, as defined in our founding documents, is to secure the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Without life, there is no way to exercise liberty or pursue happiness, so at a bare minimum the government must protect life. The concept that life is worth protecting is, at its core, a moral value based upon the sacred origins of human life; thus, any law created in that endeavor will impose a moral standard. The idea that it is "wrong" to murder, steal, rape, and lie, is a moral standard. Our laws against murder, theft, sexual assault, and perjury impose morality. In fact, I challenge the reader to find any law that does not impose some sort of morality. So, if you're going to lambast any religion that seeks to impose morality through legal channels, perhaps you should start by lambasting the good old "separation of church and state" U. S. of A.

The question is not, "Does the law impose morality?" Because all law imposes morality, the question must be, "What sort of morality does the law impose?" According to our founding documents, the morality that our law should--in fact, must--impose, is that life is sacred and should be protected. Abortion is an abridgment of the fundamental individual right to life, and as such it should be illegal in this country. To be frank, it already *is* illegal, regardless of what the Supreme Court says, unless you believe that the whim of the judiciary supersedes the foundational precepts of the Declaration of Independence.

Many people fall back on the "viability" argument, saying that life is only worth protecting once it is "able to survive outside the mother's womb." This argument is absurd. When is someone truly "viable"? An infant is arguably not "viable" because he cannot survive without constant care. A two-year-old child is arguably not "viable." Try putting a two-year-old kid out on the street, and see how long they stay alive. For that matter, try the same thing with most teenagers, or even a middle-aged couch potato. What about the disabled, the elderly, the terminally ill who require round-the-clock dedicated care to keep them alive? "Viability" is an arbitrary concept. It is not a valid determining factor for whether or not life should be protected. The only valid determining factor is whether or not the individual is human, period. Ask any honest medical professional, and they'll tell you that a human zygote is human. It's not a cow, or a horse, or a dog. It's human, and according to the foundational precepts of our nation, it should be (and in fact already is) protected by law.

The abortion issue is a perfect example of what happens when a Constitutional Republic begins to degrade into a pure Democracy. Those who practice abortion are, according to our founding documents, committing a crime. We are simply allowing them to get away with it, using an out-of-control judiciary as an excuse for the government's abdication of its primary duty to protect life. We are murdering those who cannot protect themselves, and that is a travesty for which we will all be held accountable.

Posted by jon at October 14, 2003 04:23 PM