Can You Feel That? It’s Your Liberty Slipping Away.
Filed Under: Freedom & Politics
South Dakota is in the process of passing a bill to ban abortion. With the conservatively-stacked US Supreme Court, this bill could possibly pave the way for the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
For me, it’s just another cold-splash-of-water-in-the-face reminder. We created our government to help protect our liberties. But as time goes by, government is not so much protecting our liberties as it is trying to re-define them.
PHAT = Parenting, Homeschooling And Technology. That about sums up my life at the moment. 
Subscribe To This Blog
Angela,Mother Crone | Feb 26, 2006 | Reply
I had chills when I read this. I think we have entered a truly frightening stage in our country, having a President that embraces the mindset of the religious right as he does. Others follow his lead and forget that our country was founded by Christian men who KNEW the separation of church and state was NECESSARY for freedom!!!
I know I will be at any marches I hear of supporting women’s rights!
archshrk | Feb 27, 2006 | Reply
It won’t take you long to figure out that I disagree with you on this one but I’m not going to argue the issue on your blog (that would be rude) I will also state that I’m not from the “religious right”. There are far too many un-Christian views expressed in that camp. But what I am wonder is, when does an issue stop being about our liberties and start being a social issue? For example, those who support gay marriage don’t support sibling marriages or adults marrying pre-teen children, right. So, from a constitutional point of view, what allows us to ban one but approve the other?
Sorry, I’m not looking for a fight. I’m just trying to figure out what gives us the right to outlaw anything? What’s the standard?
Trixie | Feb 28, 2006 | Reply
archshrk asks: “…when does an issue stop being about our liberties and start being a social issue”?
In my opinion, if we’re discussing laws and regulations, the answer is “never”. “Social issues” are not a valid basis for regulating individuals’ behavior. Protecting individual rights is the only valid basis for laws. Thus, if two rights-bearing individuals choose to enter a contract (marriage, partnership, business, whatever), I don’t see what right the government has to meddle. I don’t care if cousins or siblings marry or if people have multiple spouses. The contracts people choose to make with one another are no business of mine, nor should they be. I don’t think government should have its nose in the institution of marriage at all.
One example you give, however, brings up an issue directly relevant to the topic of abortion. The case of pre-teen marriage is relevant not because it represents a “social issue” but because it is questionable whether the parties involved are fully rational (and thus rights-bearing) individuals, capable of entering a contract. The same applies to infants, young children, and fetuses. It’s what makes abortion a very sticky moral issue indeed… and why (though I have pretty firm opinions on pretty much all moral issues), I find myself uncomfortable drawing firm conclusions here.
Fetuses, infants, and children (unlike any other creatures on earth) hold an extremely high potential for *becoming* fully rational and rights-bearing human adults. But they *aren’t* fully rational (and require significant aid in order to reach their potential) and therefore should not possess the same moral responsibilities and rights as human adults. However, as they are a unique case, it’s far less clear to me exactly what their limited rights should be… regardless, THIS is the primary issue in abortion, and one largely ignored by advocates on both sides. If one considers infanticide a crime, for example, one needs to explain why partial-birth abortion is not.
Abortion is not a political issue with which I tend to concern myself highly… it’s a difficult borderline case. Borderline cases are impossible to rectify without first establishing a clear case for liberty in more straight-forward issues. When our country universally considers it absurd to outlaw “crimes” such as drug-use and prostitution, we may be in a better position to build a more solid individual-rights basis for our abortion laws.